[Orgmode] Re: Added support for "habit tracking"

[Matthew Lundin]

John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:

> On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Matt Lundin wrote:
>
>> 1. The syntax for defining habits seems fairly complex. One must add a
>> repeating scheduled timestamp, a repeating deadline timestamp and a
>> property. I was wondering if there could be anyway to automate
>> creating
>> new habits---e.g., a dialog that asks for the appropriate time spans.
>> (My own preference would be to use a new timestamp notation to
>> indicate
>> habits. I'm not sure what this would look like. Perhaps something like
>> this: SCHEDULED: <2009-10-17 Sat !+2+2> --- where the first number is
>> the repeating span and the second is the "grace period". Of course, I
>> have no idea whether this is possible.)
>
> I agree with you here, and think that a more comprehensive SCHEDULED
> syntax might be just the fix.  I'll look into this.  Perhaps using a
> syntax like "!+2/2".

Thanks. And, of course, if a new timestamp syntax proves too
complicated, I'm more than happy to use the current implementation. :)

>
>> 3. The faces for the graph are difficult to read against dark
>> backgrounds. (See attached image.)
>
> I'll fix this too.
>
>> 4. I currently use the tag :HABIT: to track habits. This allows for
>> easy
>> filtering in the agenda. I'm wondering whether there might be an
>> option
>> to designate habits with a user-defined tag rather than the STYLE
>> property. The advantage would be much faster agenda searches for
>> habits.
>
> You can search for STYLE="habit".  I myself use contextual tags on the
> habits, because some of them aren't appropriate in other location, and
> I wouldn't want to see ":HABIT:" in the right-hand column for every
> one.
>
> Also, note that you can press K now to filter habits in and out of the
> agenda view.  They are also by default restricted to only appearing in
> todays' agenda view.

I see. That works very nicely. Sorry I missed it the first time through
the documentation. This eliminates one of the main reason I had for
switching to a tag-based implementation.

Thanks again! I look forward to playing with this some more.

Matt