Group items tagged

the LATER section gives me that

I’m always assigning alarms to anything I don’t want to think about right now

my NOW section is much more manageable and I’m calmer

Who column always displays ‘Edited by’ when an item has been modified by a fellow subscriber

depending on whether the message is Inbound or Outbound

event dates usually trump all other dates

alarm date

display something even if it’s the wrong thing some of the time

as Tasks (VTODOS)

NOW and LATER triage status will both be interpreted as “Not-Done”

Anytime events will look the same as All-day events

Trees abound in

trees prevail

they clearly limit us

Semi-lattices are non-polar, where do you start, where do you end?

Reality and the human brain's ability to grok it are far more complex than a tree

dumbing down isn't always a bad thing

you don't really understand something unless you can explain it in 5 words

Let's improve on the software

too strict, too dry, too simplistic

browse the same data via many different trees

visual information mapping hasn't already taken over the world

that break the tree

brains ARE really really good at seeing relationships

linear doublethink

stop-motion semi-lattice building

extremely adept at looking at the same data and reorganizing it into different trees in rapid succession

in one file cabinet, on one bookshelf, in one way

forcing us to look at our data

semi-lattii

Challenge: Find balance between trees

distorts the truth

expressive but often not communicative

same data in as many different kinds of trees as they want

start at any point in the tree

same data, different perspectives

rotate the tree

visual cues that seemed to burst forth with meaning begin to feel meaningless, random, disorienting

"watch" in "slow-motion" or user manipulated motion

future Chandler may have a richer graphical interface

different tree organizations of the same data

Overlaying the visualizations

composite semi-lattice

richness of semi-lattii

feed it to users in a way they can easily understand: trees

All parameters set in the browser are reflected in the Search bar

Saved rules

better than limiting users to a single tree

better than overwhleming users with a semi-lattice

"dumbing down" the data for the user

avoid UI shock via information overload

present users with the full-force and complexity of their information in a way that is understandable

possible, even within the confines of the 2-dimensional

easily walk from one tree to another

breaking away from hierarchy and how people used to hierarchies of folder are coping

http://weblog.edventure.com/blog/_archives/2004/4/19/36468.html

the freedom and amorphous-ness of a search-centric navigation paradigm

a little built in structure

Dashboard view / triage workflow as a point of entry

search to get within range

navigate using contextual clues to find the exact item

fixed hierarchies present a workflow bottlenck

we know what topic to file something under, but we don't know where that topic belongs in the hierarchy

pilers never bother to file

something new comes along to screw up the hierarchy

unwieldy taxonomies with duplication and confusion

Sometimes we don't know what we're looking for until we see it in context

brain's ability to use environmental clues to remember things

even more useful as that user pulls in other people to collaborate

We want happy users be successful evangelists for Chandler

web widgets that might be deployed in different contexts — iGoogle, Facebook, on an iPhone, etc.

widgets should be compelling to a new user who does not use the desktop, in addition to providing features that complement the desktop. Eventually, the widgets can be building blocks

misperception in the press

Being a CalDAV reference implementation is not a priority.

the Microsoft product with the most overlap with our design objectives is probably OneNote

web widgets (in the browser, on mobile devices and on the desktop)

not trying to be a GTD specific tool

Chandler’s philosophy is different enough from GTD that it would be misleading to call Chandler a GTD tool

Our best articulation of our core value to date is: Chandler is a way to manage and collaborate on ideas using: A List View built around the idea of the Triage Workflow A Calendar View Chandler Hub Sharing Service

the user problem we are serving is an emerging market

there isn’t a shared, public vocabulary to describe what we’re doing

Better product messaging so that people understand what ‘user problem’ we’re trying to solve and how we’re trying to solve it.

more ways to get data in and out

we will not be implementing CalDAV scheduling

We’re not looking to be a cheaper alternative to Outlook/Exchange. This means we’re not investing in support for free/busy-style scheduling. We’re not looking to be the ‘everyman’s’ version of Microsoft Project or Bug and Ticket-Tracking systems. This means we’re not investing in support for complex task and project management, e.g. task dependencies, tracking percent done, time estimates, robust support for assigning tasks, etc. We’re also not going to be implementing the GTD methodology.

Chandler is also a platform for building a PIM

extremely basic notion of Contacts

Reference Kind

don’t propose this instead of the Now/ Later/ Done system, but adjunct to

enter deadlines

see my tasks organized by those deadlines

and not necessarily a “to do” item

compilation of reference information

a configurable Chandler would be the most scalable solution

NOTES or REFERENCE feature would be useful

keep track of “reference material” that you want to keep around forever, just in case

substance of the task

increasingly blurred

what’s a thought *about* a task

what’s a task

inspired by user feedback

starred items (furtively used as tasks)

users who regarded *everything* they put into Chandler as a task, thereby rendering a specialized “Task Label” superfluous

Modeling “Task-ness” well is critical to both workflow and usability in Chandler so rest assured that we will continue to work through it!