Get rid of the "Later" list
I know this will be controversial for many but the Later list is
NOT GTD.
Having the Later list created confusion and it should be renamed to "Procrastination List".
In GTD, the Weekly Review process is how you decided what to work on now and it's not designed for you to waste time on what you would like to work on LATER.
Everything in your Next list is an actionable task that you can decide to work on based on Context, Time, Energy and Priority. The tasks that you will be working on for the day, go in the Today list and by default means everything in the Next list will need to wait for LATER, or at least until your next Scan.
Adding the Inactive projects to the Later list is confusing because you simply can click on the Projects header to see the same list and the new task number icons tell you how many inactive projects you have.
The ability to move a task into Later goes against GTD.
It's either Actionable or Not.
Actionable = Next/Project
Not = Waiting for, Someday, Reference or Trash.
The Later list is adding an element that simply goes against the GTD Methodology.
This latest change is FANTASTIC in many ways and I love just
about everything I saw. The Later list turned my stomach because I
started to get a feeling of Nirvana moving away from GTD
Methodology. I already have many users who work with me asking
questions about the Later list and they are confused.
PLEASE consider removing the "Procrastination List" from the UI.
P.S. Please add the filter to the Next list for hiding task that show in "Today" as well. :-)
Showing the most recent page of comments. View the first page
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
32 Posted by roddyt on 02 Jul, 2010 02:03 AM
Lots of good comments. I'm in the camp that doesn't feel that Later fits. In fact, I wasn't too keen on the prior Inactive functionality. Not the principle of it per se, but the implementation. After all, what's so special about a project that it can be made inactive, but a standalone task can't? Hmmm? Anyway, that's behind us now.
I don't see why the "Later" functionality couldn't be accomplished by simply moving "Later" tasks to the bottom of the Next list. Beyond that, the only thing Later is doing is hiding them from view. But is that really necessary?
Even if you don't use context, time, and energy, that still leaves priority; and I think most people will order their list at least to some degree. And let's face it, if you are putting tasks in a Later list, then you are prioritizing.
OK, so you have a long list, and even if you don't filter by anything, you'll start at the top until you find a task to do, by whatever method you choose. If you've made it all the way down to the "get book from library" task, then darn it, I think maybe it's time you go get that book.
The same scenario with the Later list means you went through the entire Next list without finding a task to do, so you have to go into the Later list to find one. Not likely? Then you wouldn't have gotten that far down the Next list either. Other than a psychological benefit, I don't see what hiding those tasks in a separate list accomplishes.
There are a couple of prerequisites to make this a viable solution though. One is the unified Next list where all tasks appear as they do in the Today list. Many of us have been plugging this for some time now. The other is not necessary, but helpful, and that is the suggestion to have buttons, or some other means, to send a task to the top or bottom of the list.
33 Posted by roddyt on 02 Jul, 2010 02:45 AM
Lasse,
Later list aside, I have to disagree with you when you said before that the other Nirvana features are not in the GTD methodology. They may not be labeled the same as GTD functions, but their practical usage certainly follows GTD.
Scheduled tasks are indispensable for creating ticklers.
The Today list could be seen as the equivalent of pulling folders of projects or tasks you plan to work on from your Next Actions file drawer and putting them on your desk.
Due dates. There is a difference between a task that has to be done ON a certain day and one that has to be done BY a certain day. You put dentist appointments on a calendar, but if you have to prepare for a presentation to be given on a fixed date, then the due date is another field to help you prioritize it. And beyond that, there's no rule that says that Nirvana can't also serve as a calendar. The only GTD rule is that the calendar is sacred, and if the due dates are truly due dates, it doesn't matter that they happen to be in Nirvana.
Tags are iffy, but as long as they are being used for context, that does put them in the GTD list.
I'll give you Inactive projects though, but as I said in my prior post, I wasn't a fan of that anyway.
34 Posted by Proximo on 02 Jul, 2010 03:58 PM
Good points by both Lasse and roddyt.
I think we can all fall into a trap of how DA defines how he uses GTD because the book is not geared toward a software solution.
The translation of how something is done in the physical world vs. the digital world can be confusing. The Methodology is what's important and I am open to anything that can make GTD easy and functional. I don't like when I see something that can confuse people or start them on a path of bad habits. ;-)
Just because the Duke boys climb into their car through the window, does not mean it's a good habit to develop. You try that on my car and I will smack you down. :-)
35 Posted by kevinponeill on 30 Sep, 2010 11:38 PM
I would like to voice my vote against the Later list. Enough said.
Thanks!
David McLaughlin closed this discussion on 10 Feb, 2011 02:30 AM.