[Suggestion] Time and Energy
I have HARD TIME using time/energy in Nirvana. In Smartytask they have high/medium/low buttons which were quite easy to use.
Picking EXACT time esitmate for each task, at least for me, is an over kill. I am totally ok with knowing that a task is "quick and dirty" (low time estimate), moderate (med) or major task that needs large chunk of the day.
Solution would be allowing us to customize our time estimate and energy estimate. Then some us could have low/medium etc. and other would have exact numbers (perhaps even diffrent from what nirvana has now)
please consider
Support Staff 2 Posted by Elbert McLaughlin on 28 Mar, 2011 02:41 PM
Good feedback.
Will definitely consider an option to simplify for those that prefer fewer options.
3 Posted by Proximo on 29 Mar, 2011 02:55 AM
I think MarcinGTD has a very good point here. I find myself always selecting 15 minutes, 1 hour or 2 hours for most of my task.
Most of the time I pick 1 hour when it could actually last between 45 min to 1.5 hours. When I choose 15 minutes, it could actually last between 15 to 30 minutes.
I think having a low, medium and high time badge will be good enough and it will mean something different to the individual user. If I want low to mean 15 minutes, medium to mean 1 hour and high to mean 3 hours or more, I can do this with no problem. At the same time low for MarcinGTD could mean 10 minutes, medium could be 45 minutes while high can mean 2 hours to MarcinGTD.
In this way, it's faster to enter the time needed and it would mean something different to everyone at the same time.
I rarely can estimate the exact length of my task and trying to be precise when choosing time is more of a mind game than reality.
+1 on the idea if you ask me.
4 Posted by Chris Webb on 29 Mar, 2011 08:15 AM
+1 from me as well - I've found that the actual timings are never really that useful to me. It's an intuitive thing.
5 Posted by Patrice on 29 Mar, 2011 11:35 AM
+1, agreed on the point.
6 Posted by david-drake on 29 Mar, 2011 02:27 PM
+1, I agree!
Support Staff 7 Posted by David McLaughlin on 29 Mar, 2011 06:48 PM
+1 This is scary, even I agree.
dbm
8 Posted by Kenny Grant on 31 Mar, 2011 08:31 AM
I'm probably panicking for no reason here but I wanted to make sure what this thread is suggesting is not to get rid of time completely.
It was my understanding that allocating a time to a task (however inaccurate) was not only to measure the individual task but so that eventually we could see the total time for tasks in a given view - e.g. focus view.
During my daily review one of the most difficult challenges I have is allocating an appropriate amount of tasks to match the time I have available that day. I understand that focus isn't necessarily meant to be a 'today' view but I think many will use it like that. I suggest that anyone who does a daily review is (often) using the focus view as a today view because part of the process is to star actions that are potentially intended to get done before the next daily review i.e. tomorrow.
So times on tasks are really important to me - please don't take them away. In fact please add 'total time for tasks in this view' functionality so that I can see how much time I will need to get a specific number of tasks done....and this doesn't have to be just focus, it could be next view but with some filters applied, it could be a project etc, I think this would be powerful.
I agree that more specific times should be available and if that's the only thing this thread is saying (I'm a little worried there's more than 1 point running in this thread) then +1 from me.
9 Posted by Elurven on 31 Mar, 2011 08:59 AM
How about making this a user preference, as with so much else. Default could be low, medium, high on the time field (as a humble suggestion from me). The other option could be that the user manually enters time, or that there are some pre-defined lengths of time to choose from.
10 Posted by dafyren on 31 Mar, 2011 10:28 AM
Why not simplify this and offer these four options for everybody:
High
Medium
Low
Manually enter time
Sometimes I know how long time it would take, but most times I don't.
11 Posted by jber on 31 Mar, 2011 01:57 PM
I am definitely on the side of not only keeping Time as it is now, but also enhancing it so I can see the TOTAL TIME that I have committed to my tasks. If I know I have 4 hours available in my day and I can see an indicator showing that I've scheduled myself for 10 hours of tasks, I can then realistically and effectively recalibrate my plans as needed.
12 Posted by Proximo on 01 Apr, 2011 03:07 AM
I was not suggesting to remove time but a user preference were we can simplify time by 3 choices such as low, med, high or something similar
13 Posted by Robin on 01 Apr, 2011 06:57 AM
I was thinking the same thing when time first made an appearance. I definitely agree with the authors suggestion.
+1
14 Posted by Kenny Grant on 01 Apr, 2011 07:57 AM
I'm firmly in Elbert's and David's domain here but I'm not sure this is the sort of thing you would or could 'preference' - it's behavioural functionality not a cosmetic choice.
For example if the functionality was there to add up time for a given list - what would this show if a user decided to not use numbers as their measure of time?
And if a user had been using high, medium or low for a while and decided to change to numbers, what would happen to the tasks that were already marked? You could have a list that included numeric and alphanumeric?
I personally think this sort of thing is an example of an app's opinionated feature - i.e. this is how the app is meant to work and you can't change it.
15 Posted by Proximo on 03 Apr, 2011 05:58 PM
@Kenny
Very good points.
I have no problem with choosing time as it works today, but I know most of the time It's not really accurate and I am choosing something that is in the ball park. Since I am picking something in the ball park, I figured it would be nice just to have 3 time badges that can represent little time, medium time and long time. :-)
I don't add up my time for task because it will only add up my ball park figure which would be completely inaccurate. I can imagine that if someone's job required very accurate time allocation such as a consultant, they would require the time increments with the total time function. Now that I think about it, why can't we just enter the amount of time ourselves?
This is not a big deal to me, but I can relate with the idea of having time badges that represent an amount of time (ball park) rather than an accurate time allocation.
16 Posted by Kenny Grant on 04 Apr, 2011 08:34 AM
I see what you mean @Proximo, it's a tricky one this isn't it - to satisfy everyone's style of using 'time'. Entering the amount of time ourselves sounds good....
17 Posted by Proximo on 04 Apr, 2011 06:01 PM
With time I hope to get better at choosing the correct amount of time any given task may take me, but history has proven that I am wrong most of the time. :-)
Like I said, it's not a big issue for me and I know certain type of work does require accurate time with a total time count.
Support Staff 18 Posted by David McLaughlin on 07 Apr, 2011 09:55 PM
@Kenny - you're correct that having a mixed-mode approach (low-med-high for some, and a numeric value for others) is not a good thing IMHO. Pretty much always leads to problems at some point.
@all - if we switched to forcing entry of a specific value for time -- that will get a major outcry -- specifically from those people who want to reduce the click/stroke counts already -- wasn't that the genesis of this thread?
I'm usually conflicted over these types of things because on one hand I know, as most do, that time estimates are pretty much SWAGs from beyond - and on the other hand I also am like @jber in wanting to know what my expected time exposure is for the day.
The downside for me about knowing the "exact" time I have outstanding is then I end up have that as a pressure point, that really distracts from the focus of doing the tasks - and I've already laid them out according to priority anyway, rright? It's goes to the saying I used to tell my programming team in the old days, "Work fast, but don't be in a hurry." Knowing that there is 6 hours of work left, with only 4 hours to go, tends to get one in a "hurry" to a mistake, or perhaps do a less quality result to meet the deadline.
Now if I had my preferences (and assuming Elbert doesn't kill me for saying this), I would go with something along the 5-stars route (maybe hour-glasses? :-)
and just use that -- for some reason three never seems enough, even though I use the middle three 90% of the time.
But since that doesn't satisfy the time-specific crowd, then you'd need to have user preference settings to say 1-star = 5 min, 2-stars = 15 min, 3-stars = 30min, etc.
But that would drive me crazy trying to add up my "stars" - LOL
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone, but I think I'd rather not know the specific times -- ignorance is bliss.
Cheers,
David
19 Posted by Kenny Grant on 08 Apr, 2011 08:11 AM
+1 for accumulating symbols of time (e.g. hourglass etc). And if we can have a 'total [symbol]' figure for each view we could individually get to know what this meant to us in time after a while.
I think this would be a good solution to the absolute time duration problem which I agree is often too inacurate to be useful. It's a technique used in Agile delivery where the equivalent is story points....it's works well.
20 Posted by kbjeff on 08 Apr, 2011 10:32 AM
I definitely see how time and effort will be useful for a lot of people.
Personally, I'm trying my best to keep everything as simple as possible.
I've yet to use those two functions for fear of overcomplicating things.
Plus, so far, I don't really need it.
Would like a preference option to toggle these off completely. So, they wouldn't show up as icons in the header or in any of the RMB lists.
21 Posted by Proximo on 12 Apr, 2011 03:45 AM
@kbjeff,
It's OK if you don't use it but I wanted to point out that "Time and Energy" are fundamental to GTD. They are actually part of what makes GTD work. If you can't filter your task by Time available or Energy level required, you have nothing more than a To Do list. Time and Energy allow you to work on the correct things along with the proper context.
Just saying. :-)
22 Posted by kbjeff on 12 Apr, 2011 12:07 PM
No arguments from me.
Just to point out that one of the underlying GTD mantras is "... as much as is required for you, and no more."
I'm generally at a point where my lists are sized and organized such that I can intuitively assess time and energy at a glance. If that gets out of hand, than I'll take the next step of adding more tracking complexity.
:)
23 Posted by Mark S on 12 Apr, 2011 01:02 PM
+1 for quick time entry by limiting options and also having a visible icon denoting the specific time for a task.
Instead of stars of hourglasses (which are both quite detailed icons IMO), can I suggest a circle?
Think an empty clock face.
An empty circle denotes a task requiring less than 5 minutes.
1 quarter colored means 15 minutes
2 quarters means 30 minutes
3 for 45 minutes
4 for 1 hour
Although the actual time definitions don't have to be that fixed?
Just "not a lot of time needed" to "a lot of time needed"?
:D I think it would make the icon very easy to understand.
Also by having limited options it would be mean that the time options could appear as a horizontal style toolbar type arrangement on the task form, then instead of 2 clicks to enter time (one to open the drop-down and one to select) then it's just a single click.
Being able to tab across the options and hit enter would also be ideal.
I also think the same could be done for energy.
If done using simple, clear icons and styles I don't think it would detract from the simplicity currently used on the form.
Just my opinion of course.
Thanks,
Mark
24 Posted by kbjeff on 12 Apr, 2011 01:09 PM
Nice idea Mark!
25 Posted by Proximo on 14 Apr, 2011 10:45 PM
@Mark S
I like your idea.