Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

A unified solution for note taking and task management

<< < (5/11) > >>

urlwolf:
I guess what we are discussing here is: is the human race unable to produce a task manager they like?
Facts:

* The todo list app category is bigger than all other categories together, with new entrants daily.
* Mostly everyone I know has huge problems to use a todo list app beyond the first week. They don't stick to it. People find txt files or even paper superior.
Why does the situation sucks so much? Why do I have to spend hours every now and then checking to see if anyone has made a tool for this that is half good?

/rant off

Paul Keith:
I disagree with the statement that this is what we're discussing but as far as why the situation sucks?

I think that's easier to answer. It sucks because to do lists are an unnatural way of doing things. Most people who ever need a massive lists of items under their to-do lists are not only often part of corporate settings, they are often part of group settings where they are not responsible for a perfect active to-do list.

To compound this problem, most productivity guides who rely on to-do lists are written in a way to sell, not to help. In addition to this, most quality to-do lists are much more complicated but many rely on simpler designs. The supply for this is so bad that a productivity system based on Outlook can gain vast positive reviews.

Of course all this is trying to encompass a general concept of why the situation suck. In this thread for example, I would assume the OP finds the situation problematic simply because many to-do lists shy away from rich text editing and not many applications are cross-gadget.

JavaJones:
Paul, it sounds like a lot of your argument is driven by your own personal experiences with Gmail (while you argue from a more generalist perspective, the actual points you're making exactly mirror how you describe your personal experience). To me the simple fact that you kept using Gmail "despite" not being into its UI and mail organization metaphor means it is *at least* not so bad you had to switch, and does enough other things right to be worth keeping. In the end adoption is a (though not *the*) critical measure. Granted in a situation like with Gmail there are many factors affecting adoption, but many that you point out only became relevant later in its life, or were - I think - secondary to its core functionality and appeal. I maintain that if the underlying mail handling metaphor were unworkable for people, they would leave.

So I still feel strongly that Gmail is a good example of what I'm talking about and nothing you've brought up really makes me think otherwise. You don't need to use Gmail to have a Google Account and use Docs for example, but you chose to for some reason. I'm not up to going point-by-point on your arguments at the moment, but for just one more example, you say something like " in terms of the questions you've raised, Gmail didn't suddenly answer it so it's a poor example", when in fact it absolutely did. Gmail started from day 1 with a novel approach to organizing mail. *That* is the point I'm getting at - they came up with a new idea and put it out there and it's hard in my view to argue that their mail organizing system did not at least contribute to Gmail's success. Yes, it was invite only for a long time (nearly 3 years), but anyone who started using it obviously had no investment in it beyond initial novelty; the fact that many continued to use it says something. You almost seem to be arguing its success was *in spite* of its biggest stand-out feature. That just seems like a willful desire to avoid seeing labels-and-search as the breakthrough it was for email at the time, simply (I gather) because you personally don't like it.

I think MLO is an example of someone trying to do something differently in the task management space, so maybe more directly relevant here. Maybe there are other examples. Rather than trying to tear down my Gmail example, why not come up with some better ones? You seem to be open to the idea that novel approaches to task management that enforce rules on a user *may* in fact be better than highly flexible systems that give no direction. So let's focus on that.

- Oshyan

Paul Keith:
(while you argue from a more generalist perspective, the actual points you're making exactly mirror how you describe your personal experience)-JavaJones
--- End quote ---

It's impossible to avoid this. After all, it is one of the issues you're raising and counter-raising. Does Gmail fit your premise?

To avoid personal experiences would be to insult your counter-points. After all, had my non-personal views been enough, you wouldn't have also countered with your personal views of how Gmail just works. Once it's gotten to that level, part of respecting your viewpoints is to also share my more personal experiences especially since I've already raised the more general points prior to your counter-points.

To me the simple fact that you kept using Gmail "despite" not being into its UI and mail organization metaphor means it is *at least* not so bad you had to switch, and does enough other things right to be worth keeping.
--- End quote ---

...and this is why personal details are necessary sometimes. This is one example of an impression I wanted to avoid and there's no debunking this unless personal experiences are brought up.

If it wasn't clear in my previous post, I didn't continue to use Gmail. Maybe I should have been clearer and said I opted for Yahoo after trialing gmail just like I tried hotmail. Gmail though had several aspects that would later bring me back. Most of that is not due to the interface but things like Google Reader.

Granted in a situation like with Gmail there are many factors affecting adoption, but many that you point out only became relevant later in its life, or were - I think - secondary to its core functionality and appeal. I maintain that if the underlying mail handling metaphor were unworkable for people, they would leave.
--- End quote ---

...and this is once again why it was important to share personal experiences. To avoid directions like this.

Not only that, a good fit is different from whether something is unworkable for people or not. It goes back to the mechanics-dynamics issue. Of course any product should get the mechanics down and that means it should work for many people. It doesn't mean they would consider it a great fit though.

So I still feel strongly that Gmail is a good example of what I'm talking about and nothing you've brought up really makes me think otherwise.
--- End quote ---

As I tend to say, you are entitled to your opinion. I just brought up my points to highlight where I disagree. I'm often one of the worst at communicating those points but I mostly share my observations and if I notice a flaw I bring it up.

You don't need to use Gmail to have a Google Account and use Docs for example, but you chose to for some reason.
--- End quote ---

err... I kind of did because everyone needs webmail unless they know how to work things like Outlook or have a company e-mail that they have to use.

Especially back then when a Twitter or Facebook account can't be used to register to new services.

Not only that, Gmail today has prioritized inboxes and with the death of Syphir which has become TaskForceApp - that's kind of the only service that exists out there that auto-organizes incoming e-mails somewhat.

ou say something like " in terms of the questions you've raised, Gmail didn't suddenly answer it so it's a poor example", when in fact it absolutely did. Gmail started from day 1 with a novel approach to organizing mail. *That* is the point I'm getting at - they came up with a new idea and put it out there and it's hard in my view to argue that their mail organizing system did not at least contribute to Gmail's success.
--- End quote ---

In order for this to be valid, it would have to assume a static scenario. A single incident like say Dropbox where once it was released and people found out about it, if they liked it, they used it.

This doesn't mean Dropbox wasn't also a gradual process but see Dropbox as a concept is closer to a static scenario which applies somewhat correctly to the philosophical nature of your first two questions.

On the other hand, Gmail simply isn't. Maybe the tech crowd pushed for that impression because of all the buzz but that's like saying Firefox suddenly appeared one day. It didn't.

Firefox was Phoenix first and even though for many middle adopters it may seem like it came from nowhere, fact is - both to early adopters and later adopters they would know that it was a gradual easing up on using Firefox. Be it from the popularity of open source or from an Adblock extension, Firefox didn't became a one night success.

Gmail is the same. It may not have a name change but like FB, it was incubating itself within closed invite-only beta.

Remember you weren't originally arguing for Gmail's newness as an idea.

This was the questions you were raising:

One thing I always wonder about with this kind of thing: is it better to try to have flexible software that adapts to the user (assuming they know what they want), or to have software that implements a really good way of doing things and have the user adapt to that?

You can't suddenly go from the above and suddenly switch it to an argument of whether Gmail is a good or bad gamble. Both of our points replying to the above quoted subject would lose it's context if it were applied this way.

You almost seem to be arguing its success was *in spite* of its biggest stand-out feature.
--- End quote ---

I'm not. For one thing, we were not originally discussing Gmail's success. Why would I then shift topics? I'm only adding to your impression of Gmail with my own impression, observation and experiences. Not because I'm arguing for anything about Gmail but simply to expand on what I early felt about how Gmail might be a poor example.

That just seems like a willful desire to avoid seeing labels-and-search as the breakthrough it was for email at the time, simply (I gather) because you personally don't like it.
--- End quote ---

Sorry, you lost me. Why would I avoid seeing labels and search as the breakthrough it was? More importantly, why would I even bring this point up? It has only mildly to do with this:

One thing I always wonder about with this kind of thing: is it better to try to have flexible software that adapts to the user (assuming they know what they want), or to have software that implements a really good way of doing things and have the user adapt to that?

...more importantly it would go against the context of my post as to how I feel Gmail is a poor example.

To address something even in willfully desiring to avoid it would be to admit that Gmail is a good example.

Not only that, it's simply a stance I never took in this thread.

Rather than trying to tear down my Gmail example, why not come up with some better ones?
--- End quote ---

For mainly two things:

1) This isn't the main topic of the thread so I'm keeping it light.

2) I still did brought up some counter-analogies though I didn't expand on it due to point 1.

3) Because I wasn't trying to tear down your Gmail example, just merely pointing out some basic observable flaw from my perspective. If by simply doing this could be interpreted as tearing down your example, imagine how you would react if I claim "my example is better. Discuss this! Discuss this!".

You seem to be open to the idea that novel approaches to task management that enforce rules on a user *may* in fact be better than highly flexible systems that give no direction. So let's focus on that.
--- End quote ---

I would if I was a developer or if I felt the conversation could lead me to improving a system.

I just don't think the premise can lead to anything. For one thing, this isn't the main topic of the thread so it's borderline thread hijacking to discuss it here.

The second is that, as I know more about programming (not the howto, but the process and the ideal), the more I realize how important implementation is. Sure, from time to time, I would chime in with what I observe as seemingly clear flaws that aren't brought up but my main goal is to produce something helpful. Not to win over my point.

This 2nd point also happens to coincide with the core question of productivity. We have people doing mostly to-do apps because they have felt that the argument was won a long time ago. Sure the question can be re-raised but fundamentally it's not just important to raise a better example, it's important to be able to produce a better example. Ones that would legitimately push people away from the conceptual into the actual. Kinda like how Gmail's appearance, while not sudden, made many adopters (especially casual ones who can't develop an e-mail prototype) forget what their preferred e-mail design is and simply switched to the more mature product especially as the alternatives are few and far between and Gmail constantly grew. Not literally forget but mentally act like they forget and that this was the service and design they want to adopt for near eternity...unless the service starts sucking or an alternative totally blows the service out of the water with a new but also implemented, rather than conceptual, idea.

Just to lay it much more clearly and succinctly, I don't really have a problem with conceptual discussions. After all I am participating in this conversation. I just feel that if I were to sink further into this conversation, I should be able to contribute more into the actual goal of producing a better system or software. I currently can't and a big reason why I can't is that the conceptual discussion if went down further would eventually lead to a need for providing an example and I'm not the most charismatic at getting my coding requests to be done for me so we could verify which are the good sounding examples and which are the truly good examples.

JavaJones:
I'm sorry, I really don't get your arguments. They seem all over the map.

Dropbox was invite-only to start as well. I don't see the distinction from Gmail.

When I said "is it better to try to have flexible software that adapts to the user (assuming they know what they want), or to have software that implements a really good way of doing things and have the user adapt to that?", it was implied in my mind - though I now realize not stated clearly enough - that we needed a *new* "really good way of doing things", and Gmail then is a perfect example of that to me. I still maintain that a large part of its success was the fact that it did things totally differently from other systems, and this is based not just on my own experience and opinions but those of many, many people, both personal acquaintances and online, from average people to techies. Many, many people say similar things, something like "I used to worry about carefully filing all my mail into folders, how to deal with something that belonged in multiple folders, etc. Now I just use Gmail, labeling things when it makes sense, and using search for the rest. I find stuff way faster just by remembering a few things about it." So Google had a good idea (IMO) and also a new idea and that, combined with a clever way of marketing it and making it available, made it successful. It has continued to be successful built largely on the solid base of its unique mail organization metaphor.

I guess reading your reply(ies) in full, maybe you just misunderstood my original argument. If that's the case, maybe you don't disagree with me at all. Or, if you do, I really can't understand it. ;) So that being the case I still think we should just drop the Gmail discussion and look for other examples so we can discuss the original question! I think the lengthy tangent on whether Gmail is a good example is much more thread drift than addressing my question which, while philosophical and not directly on topic of the original post, could still lead to relevant info and answers. I personally feel that we have a better chance of finding real solutions if we first figure out whether we're looking for something to adapt to our desired ways of working, or are instead willing to adapt to a theoretically better way of working that is embodied in a particular tool. I am saying that I think the latter *may* be more realistic...

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page