emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] are super-hidden technical blocks required?


From: Christopher J. White
Subject: Re: [O] are super-hidden technical blocks required?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:02:25 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0

Hi Folks,

I thought I'd throw in my 2c on the topic. I work on org-toodledo which syncs TODO items with Toodledo.com. On first sync, it creates adds a "ToodledID" property to track the ID assigned by the server.

In my use case, that majority of TODO items have *no* other properties. As such, many items have a PROPERTIES drawer with just the one entry.

What I see is visual clutter. Many of my TODO items are also very small -- often no body at all. So the only thing beneath the item is the property drawer plus other "properties" like DEADLINE/SCHEDULED/CLOSED. When trying to browse my todo list, it gets a little painful when every other line is ":PROPERTIES:...", or DEADLINE, etc.

I rarely (never?) edit any of these properties directly manually. I either modify them via agenda mode, keys (C-c C-s), or via column view that pulls out interesting properties that I like to edit.

So for me, I want the entire *drawer* to disappear, as well as SCHEDULED/DEADLINE and CLOSED lines.

I've personally thought there should be an extra step in the visibility cycling:

<TAB>
  -> FOLDED -> CHILDREN -> SUBTREE -> PROPERTIES

S-<TAB>

  -> OVERVIEW -> CONTENTS -> SHOW ALL (minus PROPS) -> PROPERTIES

...cj


On 8/1/12 9:19 PM, Torsten Wagner wrote:
Hey Bastien,

thanks for keeping the topic up. Well, I guess people who are dealing
with import/export from third-party programs might have an idea how to
use this functionality (and can tell us how useful this would be). I
can try to contact the authors of mobileorg for iphone and android as
well as some other authors of sync-tools (if they are not already
contributing to this discussion). Lets see what is there opinion.

All the best

Torsten


On 1 August 2012 22:29, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Thorsten,

thanks for the detailed example.  As I said, I tend to be conversative
about such topics.  Not because I'm already too old, but because this is
often not worth the time-to-implement/complexity-in-code.  So I'm still
open to read a very compelling case where "tech" properties need to be
hidden...

Of course, "need" is subjective -- let's say if you manage to have at
least 3 friends complaining about tech properties being visible when
unfolding a drawer, I'm all ears :)

--
  Bastien





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]