hierarchical approach to categories/tasks

[Guest]

Outlook needs to allow the nesting of subcategories under categories - and
collapse them as well so you don't have to look at all of them. There is no
plausible logical reason why this is bad for the user.

The same can be said for subtasks...the tasking interface should be a
simpler version of MS Project - with subtasks, dependencies, etc...

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Outlook needs to allow the nesting of subcategories under categories
- and collapse them as well so you don't have to look at all of them.
There is no plausible logical reason why this is bad for the user.

I'm not sure why you'd think the reason it isn't implemented has anything to
do with "bad for the user". Categories are a keyword field - if you've done
any database work this may mean something.

The same can be said for subtasks...the tasking interface should be a
simpler version of MS Project - with subtasks, dependencies, etc...

Send a request to (e-mail address removed)

 

[Guest]

I missed the day my programmers said we can't implement a heirarchical data
structure for the web site because we use a "keyword field". If MS Access
data structures are the limitation then perhaps that needs to change as well.

MS routinely says that ctain features would "confuse users" hence my
reference to bad for the user - it would only be good for the user for a
usability perspective.

What MS and others have failed to recognize is the life cycle of data.
People using computers in 1993 only really had them for a couple of years -
until 1995 it was not normal for most office works to have a computer. So
early in the PCs days new software products didn't need to worry about this
large mass of personal data that users are trying to retain.

Now we have a decade of data we would like to keep track of and the PC tools
have not evolved.