OmniFocus: the interface is weak but the project is willing

Like others here, I put some serious dedication into trying to love OmniFocus only to find that I was spending too much time trying to bend myself to its design, rather than feeling it would ever bend to mine. There are, of course, some aspects of the program that I found absolutely wonderful--date parsing and autocomplete, for example--but I find I can live without those things more easily than I can live with the annoyances.

Matt's done a fabulous job of delineating many of the little niggles that have turned me off, but for me there are a couple of core issues that may keep me from ever using OmniFocus for my GTD.

HIERARCHIES, PROJECTS, AND ACTIONS. My interpretation of David Allen's philosophy, and my personal approach, is to think of every Project as being a sub-project somewhere on the Big Hierarchical Tree called, "Life." Any _physically actionable_ Project is, by definition, a leaf node on this tree and, thereby gets to _also_ be called an Action. Thus, "Life:Type some thoughts about OmniFocus on TidBITS Talk," or "Life:Stay healthy:Eat well:Buy veges at Farmer's Market." Sometimes my Actions are one-off Projects that I don't have time to explicitly link to a larger Project/goal, while other Actions serve me best when carefully organized.

My complaint here is two-fold. First, I find it frustrating that OmniFocus introduces Groups (a concept found nowhere in David Allen's GTD), and that the hierarchy is arbitrarily 1 deep. For the correct implementation, OmniGroup need look no further than OmniFocus' own implementation for Contexts, which they allow (needlessly, imho) to nest arbitrarily. Second, Projects, Groups and Actions can't be converted one to another with sufficient transparency. Why not simply define everything with a description as a Project, and anything without child Projects as an Action?

MINIFOCUS AND LISTS. OmniFocus seems to take its own name a bit too much to heart, which is surely unintentional. What I mean by that is that it's all too easy in OmniFocus to focus on all things at once. You can see all contexts at once, or all Actions with a certain status at once...but what happens when you want to _truly_ focus on just one Action at a time? What happens when you want to minimize your focus to the bare essentials?

My preference when working on Actions—whether in Projects (aka Planning...yech) Mode or Contexts mode—would be to have an option to have only one Action presented to me at a time. A simple interface (buttons/keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, swiping sideways versus vertically on the iPhone) would then allow me to snooze the Action or mark it complete. (If I'm working on it, it would simply retain focus.) This is what I truly wish the Focus button would do in this application, but instead it reduces unwieldy lists to somewhat-less-unwieldy lists.

On this point, I'd like to see OmniFocus, and indeed other list-based applications, take a hint from LifeShaker. It might seem strange to compare such a feature-limited application (LS) with one so complex (OF), but I actually find myself wanting to return to LifeShaker more and more because of two features. First, it presents Actions ("Steps," in LifeShaker parlance) for review _outside_ of the usual list format. Second, it allows Actions/Steps to be snoozed via the Backburner feature. Both of these innate "focussing" features, along with LifeShaker's almost stubborn simplicity, seem to keep me from building up a resistance to using it consistently.

http://www.funkycloud.com/lifeshaker/

In the end, any GTD system is only effective if reviewed frequently. This applies to OmniFocus, LifeShaker, Life Balance, or even just blank paper and a pen. So the big question, and where YMMV, is whether you find yourself drawn back into OmniFocus enough to keep things up-to-date, or whether you find yourself avoiding it until it becomes just another place to store (and avoid) Stuff.

I have been using OF since the beta, and I have to agree with everything in this thread. Despite Omni's claims to the contrary, OF supports a very particular workflow which is unique to the program. The principle seems to be that the program is based on certain "best practices," and a user will be well-served to adopt these practices. Doing so will make them more effective. (There is some room for customization, but only within well-defined boundaries)

I believe that this is true to a great degree. OF enforces good management of tasks and projects (things simply do not show up on your to-do list unless they are properly filed), and it encourages you to focus on specific areas where you can accomplish something, thus eliminating the distractions and conflicting priorities when you're in the mode to Get Things Done.

This methodology and its incorporation into the application must be learned. It is NOT obvious from the start, the way most other to-do programs are. And this rigorous approach is not ideal for everyone -- it's too heavy for many (most?) people, too detail oriented for others, and perhaps too unforgiving as well.

I think this concept is interesting, and seems to be prevalent in a lot of GTD-type applications; which, if nothing else, require the user to adopt a GTD approach of projects and actions and next actions. On the other hand, the interface and approach is at some level cluttered and unfriendly, especially to a new user. Omni has a history of making very powerful and feature-packed applications that are extremely usable and easy to learn. OmniFocus is feature packed, but it is hardly easy to learn, and its carefully crafted interface is somewhat cluttered with features.

-- Nik

nikinik.net | http://inik.net | http://notions.inik.net

I have heard the ways that Omnifocus is not in the GTD style, but is
there a Mac program that can be used that way? I saw a beta of
something called "Things" a few months ago, also, a search for "GTD"
brings up 38 hits on Versiontracker. Is anyone using a program that
does work in the GTD style?

Ray

At 1:46 AM -0700 5/15/08, Ray Kloss wrote:
>I have heard the ways that Omnifocus is not in the GTD style, but is
>there a Mac program that can be used that way? I saw a beta of
>something called "Things" a few months ago, also, a search for "GTD"
>brings up 38 hits on Versiontracker. Is anyone using a program that
>does work in the GTD style?

If you use Entourage, the David Allen Company has a white paper that
specifically addresses how to implement GTD in Entourage. (And 2008
is not very different from 2004, so this 2006 paper would still
apply.)
<http://www.davidco.com/store/catalog/GTD-and-Entourage-p-16209.php>

I've been using LifeBalance for years - but you really have to twist
it to get it to work GTD style - the company isn't really open to
suggestions from their user base - I've been looking to change to
something that will sync to iCal well (LB finally kinda does sync
but it's dumb they way they did it).

I was very impressed with iGTD

http://www.igtd.pl/iGTD/index.html

the developer was going gang busters for a while, but things are not
moving as swiftly as I hoped. It's also 10.5 only and I'm still 10.4
for a number of reasons.

So far OmniFocus has the best chance of hitting the mark, once they
get the details worked out - I'm waiting till v2.0 myself (should
work on an iPhone as well)

p

On 15-May-08, at 1:46 AM, Ray Kloss wrote:

> I have heard the ways that Omnifocus is not in the GTD style, but is
> there a Mac program that can be used that way? I saw a beta of
> something called "Things" a few months ago, also, a search for "GTD"
> brings up 38 hits on Versiontracker. Is anyone using a program that
> does work in the GTD style?

You can try NovaMind Mind Mapper if you like graphic applications.
Most people on TidBits seem not to so I have copied you directly, Ray.

NB. David Allen webcast with MindManager: "iMindMap gdt" perversely
brings up MindManager ;--)
<www.davidco.com/mindmanager/mm_replay.html> A David Allen WebEx
archive of GTD on MindManager Mac: two industry standards combined.
<www.davidco.com/MindManager_event.php> Small image may need the
virtual magnifyer.

NovaMind in combination with Merlin project manager might be great
for the right people who see the world that way. You would be making
your own GTD patterns, though; so they could be as individualised as
you wish.

Googling brings up many combinations you may look through: "novamind
gdt"

<www.novamind.com/> <www.iMindMap.com> I use iMindMap for beauty
but may go back to NovaMind for export compatibility and on to
WebMindMapping for collaboration. <http://mindmapping.typepad.com/
the_mind_mapping_software/2008/05/the-online-mind.html>
<mindmapping.typepad.com> Mind Map software blog.

<www.whatsthenextaction.com/>

<http://pascalvenier.com/blog/?p=180>

<www.davidco.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2204.html>

Something that really bugs me is the GUI Desktop. If it was real
it could be in the form of OmniFocus; which would really turn you
on; or off: but would not leave you in neutral. Another Real
Alternative GUI would be an acrylic painting.

As all of us are fundamentally similar and very different at the same
time: how many ways of putting the same Desktop into alternative
containers are there, to suit 'All the rest of us ?' I know someone
who used Google Search as their desktop. It all came about by
accident as their HDD got overcrowded, in XP. Search was all that
was left and they worked with that until the whole thing, HDD and
all, fried itself up. The tears shed were not in time to put the
fire out. Search as a TxtUI was what suited them, personally.

Is there any real reason that would make it impossible for OmniFocus
to be available as the desktop when working in that idom. I know
that I would love to have iMindMap as my Desktop much of the time and
can only see 'Unreal Reasons' for it not already having happened.
NumbersUI Desktop; RevolutionUI desktop; OmniGraffle...

How would this make OnmiFocus better? You can all think of your own
ways, but at least, when the Finder / Desktop gets updated, OmniFocus
would get updated, too: we would not have to take the chance of
having to do it by hand. We would be using OmniFocus in parallel
with several other Apps, wouldn't we ?

George

yeah

I aways wanted iCal to work as a Desktop background

no THAT would be useful!

p

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Phil Emery wrote:

> So far OmniFocus has the best chance of hitting the mark, once they
> get the details worked out - I'm waiting till v2.0 myself (should work
> on an iPhone as well)

The release notes for the just-came-out 1.0.2 strongly imply that when
version 1.1 comes out in late June (they hope), synchronization and
iPhone support will be part of the update.

I'm hoping. I tried some of the hand-rolled sync schemes I found on
their forums, and boy were they flaky.

    Over the last few months, most of our attention has been focused on
    OmniFocus 1.1, where we've been adding support for synchronization,
    and on writing OmniFocus for the iPhone. We plan to release both
    OmniFocus 1.1 and OmniFocus for the iPhone in late June (if they're
    ready!).

http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnifocus/releasenotes/

Also take a look at the screen shot here:

http://blog.omnigroup.com/2008/05/09/omnifocus-sync-its-alive/



--
Chris Devers

At 2008-05-15 01:46 -0700 Ray Kloss wrote:

>I have heard the ways that Omnifocus is not in the GTD style, but is
>there a Mac program that can be used that way

>Is anyone using a program that
>does work in the GTD style

Ray - there are lists of some GTD programs with brief comments in the
latest ATPM (About This Particular Mactintosh), volume 14, #5 by a
guy who seems to know what he's talking about.

regards

Rowland
--
| Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
| <rowlandcarsongooglemail.com> http://home.clara.net/rowil/

For simplicity, the ATPM article URL is:

http://www.atpm.com/14.05/next-actions.shtml

This is part of a series of columns on GTD/Mac called "Next Actions" by Ed Eubank. This particular article is just a list of apps and their main properties, such as price, OS and application prerequisites, and so on. Very helpful for narrowing your focus to the few apps that might meet your needs.

-- Joshua

Nice writeup, Matt!

Few more gripes:

When in Context view, select a context, press return, type an action. The Context does not default to the current context.

I'm still struggling with contexts in general, but this is a GTD issue. However, it would be nice if OF lent the experience of the usage by the developers and community to the user of the application.

I need to find a manual for an older appliance, but not now. What is the context? Google? Web? At computer?

I'm always at the computer, I'm almost always on the web and almost always in google lol. I don't check OF every time I click Safari.

Maybe for these sorts of tasks, if it would recognize, hey you're in Safari, lets show a task for the web.... etc?

Matt,

Totally agree with you regarding Omni Focus. Everyone raves about Focus so I decided to try it and found myself hating it. I've gone to the still unreleased Things by CulturedCode. I can't place my finger on it but I enjoy working within the program, everything seems deadpan intuitive. I'm looking forward to reviews of other GTD style programs from you. Thanks, great article.

Gil Domingo

Hello,

Loved the OmniFocus article and screencasts! It'll be interesting to see what you think about Things when it finally comes out (I'm assuming that you don't review beta software). I vastly prefer Things to OmniFocus (although I'm not a follower of strict GTD by any means). Interface problems aside, OmniFocus had way too much metadata and information that I had to resort to an Inspector for it to be at all useful for me. I always ended up spending so much time entering, sorting, and categorizing tasks that I never actually did them. Far too much effort to maintain (same problem I had with Kinkless, actually; go figure).

Ian

—————————————————— Ian Beck ianonecrayon.com

I'll add another vote for Things. I love Omni's software generally, but I don't find OmniFocus particularly easy or intuitive to use. On the other hand, Things is simple and straightforward to use and syncs immediately with iCal (no need to remember to click a toolbar button).

Things is indeed a very nice program. It's big failing for me, compared to OmniFocus, is integration with other programs.

OmniFocus has an amazing "clippings" feature that goes far beyond simply grabbing selected text, and instead integrates directly with common apps. (For example, a clipping out of Safari will also capture the page's title and URL; and a Mail clipping will save a link to the message itself)

OF also has the most comprehensive AppleScript support I've seen in any application. OF's community has contributed scores of excellent scripts to customize OF's workflow to your liking. (And you can add scripts as toolbar buttons -- very cool!)

Things, by contrast, has a clipping-to-inbox service and that's it. No AppleScript. No other application integration other than iCal synchronization. (Which OF also has)

-- Nik

nikinik.net | http://inik.net | http://notions.inik.net

I was terribly bummed at OmniFocus as well, but then I found a great
Mac alternative called TaskPaper. However, there was no suitable
Windows counterpart so I built one.

You should give TaskPaper (Mac) and TodoPaper (Windows) a try :)

http://widefido.com/products/todopaper/
http://hogbaysoftware.com/products/taskpaper/

Best,
Jordan

First off, hilarious videos... You nailed it and as a OmniFocus users I have the same frustrations with the interface.

After using OmniOutliner, and knowing that OmniFocus is based on it, I was very disappointed to find how far away from the OmniOutliner interface they had taken OmniFocus.

To me the beauty of OmniOutliner is the speed at which you can add and rearrange items, and that was sacrificed in OmniFocus. Why?

On 6/24/08 5:39 PM, "Nik" <nikinik.net> wrote:

> Things, by contrast, has a clipping-to-inbox service and that's it. No
> AppleScript. No other application integration other than iCal synchronization.
> (Which OF also has)

Anymore, I almost refuse to use any application without a scripting
dictionary. Life's too short to let a developer tell me how I'm going to use
their application.

--
John C. Welch