FV and FVP Forum > User FVP thoughts
Lenore,
The difference really isn't obvious until you actually try the FVP rules, when it becomes VERY clear. I would bet that you are not the only one who hadn't quite taken it on board. So it's really helpful to have exactly this discussion.
Thank you.
The difference really isn't obvious until you actually try the FVP rules, when it becomes VERY clear. I would bet that you are not the only one who hadn't quite taken it on board. So it's really helpful to have exactly this discussion.
Thank you.
June 22, 2015 at 17:38 |
Will
Will
JulieBulie,
On the subject of three handers:
I am happy to still have full sized right and left hands.
In addition, I am ashamed to admit that I've got a little behind hand.
Back to my list!!
Cheers,
Will
On the subject of three handers:
I am happy to still have full sized right and left hands.
In addition, I am ashamed to admit that I've got a little behind hand.
Back to my list!!
Cheers,
Will
June 22, 2015 at 17:42 |
Will
Will
HA!
June 22, 2015 at 20:10 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
What Mark has come up with is an efficient sorting method or algorithm. If you follow the FVP rules with a list of random numbers you'll find that it sorts the numbers from largest to smallest perfectly and efficiently every time. So your list of tasks will also sort perfectly from "largest" to "smallest" every time (assuming you've accurately assigned priority).
If you change Mark's rules you're probably making the algorithm less efficient, probably by causing yourself to reevaluate priorities you've already made a decision about. You'll see this if you try FVP'ing the list of random numbers. When you cross a number off the list you only have to compare those below it to the nearest dotted number above it. No need to reevaluate those in between the two.
Work halfway through the list of random numbers and add new numbers to it (like adding new tasks to your ongoing todo list). Follow the rules and the largest numbers are once again selected perfectly and efficiently. (This is why you do more work at the end of the list. Numbers [tasks] 'left behind' at the top of the list are, of course, smaller numbers (less important tasks). Odds are that new random numbers [tasks] added to the list will be larger [more important].)
And what question do you use, if you choose to use one at all? If, at the end of the day, you had done all your tasks in the optimum order what question would have given you that order? What question would properly assign numbers so the FVP algorithm sorts them into the proper order? My guess is the quetion changes. What do I want/need/have to do before X? What is wiser/smarter/weightier/more valuable to do than X?
If you change Mark's rules you're probably making the algorithm less efficient, probably by causing yourself to reevaluate priorities you've already made a decision about. You'll see this if you try FVP'ing the list of random numbers. When you cross a number off the list you only have to compare those below it to the nearest dotted number above it. No need to reevaluate those in between the two.
Work halfway through the list of random numbers and add new numbers to it (like adding new tasks to your ongoing todo list). Follow the rules and the largest numbers are once again selected perfectly and efficiently. (This is why you do more work at the end of the list. Numbers [tasks] 'left behind' at the top of the list are, of course, smaller numbers (less important tasks). Odds are that new random numbers [tasks] added to the list will be larger [more important].)
And what question do you use, if you choose to use one at all? If, at the end of the day, you had done all your tasks in the optimum order what question would have given you that order? What question would properly assign numbers so the FVP algorithm sorts them into the proper order? My guess is the quetion changes. What do I want/need/have to do before X? What is wiser/smarter/weightier/more valuable to do than X?
June 23, 2015 at 0:09 |
Zane
Zane
Zane:
<< And what question do you use, if you choose to use one at all? If, at the end of the day, you had done all your tasks in the optimum order what question would have given you that order? >>
How about telling your mind to dot tasks in the optimum order? This is essentially what you are (or should be) doing in no-question FVP.
<< And what question do you use, if you choose to use one at all? If, at the end of the day, you had done all your tasks in the optimum order what question would have given you that order? >>
How about telling your mind to dot tasks in the optimum order? This is essentially what you are (or should be) doing in no-question FVP.
June 23, 2015 at 8:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Further to my last post, one could in theory write out what one intends to do during the day and then use FVP to re-write the list in optimal order. All you have to do then is just bang through the list in the order written for an optimal work experience!
I wouldn't actually advise doing this (except perhaps as an experiment) for several reasons:
1) It would make no allowance for your shifts in mood and energy during the day.
2) You wouldn't be able to include additional tasks added during the day.
3) You wouldn't be able to re-enter tasks to have another go at them the same day.
4) You wouldn't be able to respond to a change in priorities.
FVP as written deals with all four of these effortlessly.
I wouldn't actually advise doing this (except perhaps as an experiment) for several reasons:
1) It would make no allowance for your shifts in mood and energy during the day.
2) You wouldn't be able to include additional tasks added during the day.
3) You wouldn't be able to re-enter tasks to have another go at them the same day.
4) You wouldn't be able to respond to a change in priorities.
FVP as written deals with all four of these effortlessly.
June 23, 2015 at 8:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
And further to my post above:
It occurs to me that one could remove the four disadvantages of a pre-sorted list by using FVP in the normal way on the pre-sorted list itself. In theory at least, you would then do everything in the list order except for where 1) to 4) applied.
Maybe that's just getting too devious!
It occurs to me that one could remove the four disadvantages of a pre-sorted list by using FVP in the normal way on the pre-sorted list itself. In theory at least, you would then do everything in the list order except for where 1) to 4) applied.
Maybe that's just getting too devious!
June 23, 2015 at 10:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Or you could bang through the short list in FV mode until the need to check stands out, and then switch to FVP, checking the tasks below the last completed. I can't see why this shouldn't work just fine.
I find myself wanting to do this but I'm still at the stage of trying to run the process as written to get a deep understanding bedded in.
I find myself wanting to do this but I'm still at the stage of trying to run the process as written to get a deep understanding bedded in.
June 23, 2015 at 10:31 |
Will
Will
Hi Will: Your comment really interested me: "Or you could bang through the short list in FV mode until the need to check stands out, and then switch to FVP, checking the tasks below the last completed. I can't see why this shouldn't work just fine."
I've been battling with this. For example, what happened to me today is that it started out with emails and phone calls, and it was late afternoon before I could catch my breath. I ended up with many, many new priorities and urgent items (most already scattered throughout the list, but just not in the RIGHT ORDER).
So, it is taking me willpower at this point to not just drop my system and start picking things one by one. However, I feel that, in the end, I will end up feeling frustrated and defeating the whole purpose.
But am I thinking right? If you are working off a short list, and you want to go back to that item on the long list (FVP) and scan down from that just-completed task as per the rules, who knows where on the main FVP list that item might be located (and how significant a scan-down from that item would be)?
I think as time goes on, and your priorities gain some control, this desire or need to deviate from the standard FVP will be rare. But, without the short list, I guess the drawback is having to re-write so many tasks at the end of the list. But what can you do? Anyway, the whole thing as it stands is so simple, it's great. Why mess it up? Thanks.
I've been battling with this. For example, what happened to me today is that it started out with emails and phone calls, and it was late afternoon before I could catch my breath. I ended up with many, many new priorities and urgent items (most already scattered throughout the list, but just not in the RIGHT ORDER).
So, it is taking me willpower at this point to not just drop my system and start picking things one by one. However, I feel that, in the end, I will end up feeling frustrated and defeating the whole purpose.
But am I thinking right? If you are working off a short list, and you want to go back to that item on the long list (FVP) and scan down from that just-completed task as per the rules, who knows where on the main FVP list that item might be located (and how significant a scan-down from that item would be)?
I think as time goes on, and your priorities gain some control, this desire or need to deviate from the standard FVP will be rare. But, without the short list, I guess the drawback is having to re-write so many tasks at the end of the list. But what can you do? Anyway, the whole thing as it stands is so simple, it's great. Why mess it up? Thanks.
June 23, 2015 at 12:49 |
BKK
BKK
BKK
Presumably the new ones will be below the task you've just finished? The point of both FVs is to reduce the scan to it's minimum size.
I think the "short list" is just the dotted items on the long list. There isn't a separate list.
If you really have boggled and lost confidence that your latest task was still the one to work on next, you can always simply strike out and rewrite at the bottom all your dotted tasks until you are confident you are above the real priorities, then standard FVP will highlight them and work them in an appropriate order.
Or just strike out your dots and start again. I THINK Mark advises continuing through the tasks. Which shouldn't take more than a few seconds, if you've kept the short list to about five or less.
Presumably the new ones will be below the task you've just finished? The point of both FVs is to reduce the scan to it's minimum size.
I think the "short list" is just the dotted items on the long list. There isn't a separate list.
If you really have boggled and lost confidence that your latest task was still the one to work on next, you can always simply strike out and rewrite at the bottom all your dotted tasks until you are confident you are above the real priorities, then standard FVP will highlight them and work them in an appropriate order.
Or just strike out your dots and start again. I THINK Mark advises continuing through the tasks. Which shouldn't take more than a few seconds, if you've kept the short list to about five or less.
June 23, 2015 at 13:21 |
Will
Will
Will:
<< Or you could bang through the short list in FV mode until the need to check stands out, and then switch to FVP, checking the tasks below the last completed. >>
What short list? I'm talking about using FVP to re-write your *entire* list for the day in the optimal order.
There'd be no need to use FV. The tasks are already in the correct order.
To save time you could mark the end of the sorted list and then only scan tasks which have been entered after that marker.
However remember it takes quite a long time to sort and rewrite the list in correct order in the first place!
Like I said, I don't really advise it except possibly as an experiment.
<< Or you could bang through the short list in FV mode until the need to check stands out, and then switch to FVP, checking the tasks below the last completed. >>
What short list? I'm talking about using FVP to re-write your *entire* list for the day in the optimal order.
There'd be no need to use FV. The tasks are already in the correct order.
To save time you could mark the end of the sorted list and then only scan tasks which have been entered after that marker.
However remember it takes quite a long time to sort and rewrite the list in correct order in the first place!
Like I said, I don't really advise it except possibly as an experiment.
June 23, 2015 at 14:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
BKK:
<< I've been battling with this. For example, what happened to me today is that it started out with emails and phone calls, and it was late afternoon before I could catch my breath. I ended up with many, many new priorities and urgent items (most already scattered throughout the list, but just not in the RIGHT ORDER). >>
This shouldn't be a problem. FVP is very good at dealing with shifting priorities like this. Things don't have to be in the right order to get done quickly. The only thing which can throw it out is when a sudden change in priorities results in a newly urgent task being buried under a long chain of dots, in which case you can either:
1) Re-prioritize the entire chain, or
2) Cross out the buried task and re-enter it at the end of the list.
I recommend 2) in most cases.
<< So, it is taking me willpower at this point to not just drop my system and start picking things one by one. >>
You can pick things one by one without dropping the system. There's no rule which says that you have to dot more than one task at a time. And it's perfectly ok to omit or skim the full scan if you know or suspect that there are no tasks which are likely to stand out beyond where you've got to.
<< I've been battling with this. For example, what happened to me today is that it started out with emails and phone calls, and it was late afternoon before I could catch my breath. I ended up with many, many new priorities and urgent items (most already scattered throughout the list, but just not in the RIGHT ORDER). >>
This shouldn't be a problem. FVP is very good at dealing with shifting priorities like this. Things don't have to be in the right order to get done quickly. The only thing which can throw it out is when a sudden change in priorities results in a newly urgent task being buried under a long chain of dots, in which case you can either:
1) Re-prioritize the entire chain, or
2) Cross out the buried task and re-enter it at the end of the list.
I recommend 2) in most cases.
<< So, it is taking me willpower at this point to not just drop my system and start picking things one by one. >>
You can pick things one by one without dropping the system. There's no rule which says that you have to dot more than one task at a time. And it's perfectly ok to omit or skim the full scan if you know or suspect that there are no tasks which are likely to stand out beyond where you've got to.
June 23, 2015 at 14:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<< It occurs to me that one could remove the four disadvantages of a pre-sorted list by using FVP in the normal way on the pre-sorted list itself. In theory at least, you would then do everything in the list order except for where 1) to 4) applied. >>
Speaking of experiments, that's essentially what I was trying to do in OneNote (described earlier in this thread, http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2509559#post2516253 )
You quickly run into the problem of what to do with new incoming items while you work through the selected selected tasks. Do you treat new tasks as part of your new FVP shortlist, or do you treat them as part of the larger list and ignore them till your shortlist is done? The former causes your shortlist to get a lot longer very quickly, and gives new stuff more priority than existing undotted things. The latter makes the system unresponsive to urgency and changing priorities/energy/mood.
As another experiment, I tried doing the same thing in my notebook, with a complex double-dotting method, but it quickly got out of hand, LOL! It had the same problems on how to handle new items while working the shortlist.
<< It occurs to me that one could remove the four disadvantages of a pre-sorted list by using FVP in the normal way on the pre-sorted list itself. In theory at least, you would then do everything in the list order except for where 1) to 4) applied. >>
Speaking of experiments, that's essentially what I was trying to do in OneNote (described earlier in this thread, http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2509559#post2516253 )
You quickly run into the problem of what to do with new incoming items while you work through the selected selected tasks. Do you treat new tasks as part of your new FVP shortlist, or do you treat them as part of the larger list and ignore them till your shortlist is done? The former causes your shortlist to get a lot longer very quickly, and gives new stuff more priority than existing undotted things. The latter makes the system unresponsive to urgency and changing priorities/energy/mood.
As another experiment, I tried doing the same thing in my notebook, with a complex double-dotting method, but it quickly got out of hand, LOL! It had the same problems on how to handle new items while working the shortlist.
June 23, 2015 at 15:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark,
The short list is simply the dotted tasks on the long list. I was thinking back to Lenore's comment about not having to think about the process but simply bang through the selected tasks. Sorry this wasn't clear.
I was suggesting that you don't necessarily need to commit to either FV or FVP. You could work FV for the efficiency of working closed lists and switch to FVP when the need stands out to you.
But first, I want to spend more time on FVP until it's second nature. Then I might no longer feel the cost of the review after each task, so there would be less reason to use FV in the first place.
The short list is simply the dotted tasks on the long list. I was thinking back to Lenore's comment about not having to think about the process but simply bang through the selected tasks. Sorry this wasn't clear.
I was suggesting that you don't necessarily need to commit to either FV or FVP. You could work FV for the efficiency of working closed lists and switch to FVP when the need stands out to you.
But first, I want to spend more time on FVP until it's second nature. Then I might no longer feel the cost of the review after each task, so there would be less reason to use FV in the first place.
June 23, 2015 at 15:26 |
Will
Will
Zane wrote:
<< What Mark has come up with is an efficient sorting method or algorithm. >>
The Questionless variant has no comparative question, but I think this makes it even MORE effective as a sorting mechanism.
One thing I've learned from Agile is that trying to be very precise in setting priorities ahead of time is really a form of waste, especially in a dynamic environment. It's better to do a very rough ranking of your priorities, and then get more focused and precise about the things that come in near the top of the list. Questionless FVP does this more effectively than FVP, I think.
<< What Mark has come up with is an efficient sorting method or algorithm. >>
The Questionless variant has no comparative question, but I think this makes it even MORE effective as a sorting mechanism.
One thing I've learned from Agile is that trying to be very precise in setting priorities ahead of time is really a form of waste, especially in a dynamic environment. It's better to do a very rough ranking of your priorities, and then get more focused and precise about the things that come in near the top of the list. Questionless FVP does this more effectively than FVP, I think.
June 23, 2015 at 15:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Will:
"I was suggesting that you don't necessarily need to commit to either FV or FVP. You could work FV for the efficiency of working closed lists and switch to FVP when the need stands out to you."
I'm trying a kind of "time based switch" between FV and FVP.
FV let me be very focused: once selected a chain, I execute the tasks one after the other without distractions.
FVP is a little bit heavy for me: i sometimes feel resistance in scanning the list over and over again after the execution of each task, but this mode gives me the opportunity to always work on the most relevant task.
To balance the pros and cons of FV and FVP i'm following this approach:
I generally work in FV mode.... but at the beginning of each hour (at work) I switch to FVP for a while.
"I was suggesting that you don't necessarily need to commit to either FV or FVP. You could work FV for the efficiency of working closed lists and switch to FVP when the need stands out to you."
I'm trying a kind of "time based switch" between FV and FVP.
FV let me be very focused: once selected a chain, I execute the tasks one after the other without distractions.
FVP is a little bit heavy for me: i sometimes feel resistance in scanning the list over and over again after the execution of each task, but this mode gives me the opportunity to always work on the most relevant task.
To balance the pros and cons of FV and FVP i'm following this approach:
I generally work in FV mode.... but at the beginning of each hour (at work) I switch to FVP for a while.
June 24, 2015 at 13:29 |
nick61
nick61
Will:
Yes, the new items were below the task just finished. However, my "short list" was not simply a list of the dotted items; they consisted of new and already-listed-but-scattered items. So, it is now clear (to me, anyway) that if we wittingly or unwittingly end up with a short list, all kinds of adverse things can happen if we let it go on for too long or too often (like with Mark's points 1-4 above).
And now, this exercise is causing me to re-read Seraphim's link above where he discusses his experiments in OneNote and getting a "grouping into a short easy list" feeling (and the excellently-worded synopsis just below that link - like dealing with the new/incoming in the short list vs. with the long list).
Because I think our current moods and priorities are like whims - only to be replaced by something else, and sometimes very quickly.
I appreciate and agree with your other comments. I also like Mark's simplified solution:
<< FVP is very good at dealing with shifting priorities like this. Things don't have to be in the right order to get done quickly. The only thing which can throw it out is when a sudden change in priorities results in a newly urgent task being buried under a long chain of dots, in which case you can either:
1) Re-prioritize the entire chain, or
2) Cross out the buried task and re-enter it at the end of the list.
I recommend 2) in most cases.>>
So, in the end, I like the idea of staying with the long list and do as what Mark recommends, and also use a short lists as a tool if done properly, minimally and the time is right. It can't be too bad to turn away from our main system temporarily, commit to a few items (not just one), and then, bang, bang, bang, do them.
Yes, the new items were below the task just finished. However, my "short list" was not simply a list of the dotted items; they consisted of new and already-listed-but-scattered items. So, it is now clear (to me, anyway) that if we wittingly or unwittingly end up with a short list, all kinds of adverse things can happen if we let it go on for too long or too often (like with Mark's points 1-4 above).
And now, this exercise is causing me to re-read Seraphim's link above where he discusses his experiments in OneNote and getting a "grouping into a short easy list" feeling (and the excellently-worded synopsis just below that link - like dealing with the new/incoming in the short list vs. with the long list).
Because I think our current moods and priorities are like whims - only to be replaced by something else, and sometimes very quickly.
I appreciate and agree with your other comments. I also like Mark's simplified solution:
<< FVP is very good at dealing with shifting priorities like this. Things don't have to be in the right order to get done quickly. The only thing which can throw it out is when a sudden change in priorities results in a newly urgent task being buried under a long chain of dots, in which case you can either:
1) Re-prioritize the entire chain, or
2) Cross out the buried task and re-enter it at the end of the list.
I recommend 2) in most cases.>>
So, in the end, I like the idea of staying with the long list and do as what Mark recommends, and also use a short lists as a tool if done properly, minimally and the time is right. It can't be too bad to turn away from our main system temporarily, commit to a few items (not just one), and then, bang, bang, bang, do them.
June 24, 2015 at 13:41 |
BKK
BKK
I'm using both FV & FVP:
1. I dot the first active task on the list.
2. I scan down the list dotting tasks that stand out.
3. I do the last dotted task on the list.
4. I dip down to the end of the list after doing each task and dot any tasks that stand out.
5. When I eventually reach the first dotted task, I do it. Then I return to step 1.
The faster you get those oldest tasks into play at the end of your list, the more opportunities they will have to be selected.
1. I dot the first active task on the list.
2. I scan down the list dotting tasks that stand out.
3. I do the last dotted task on the list.
4. I dip down to the end of the list after doing each task and dot any tasks that stand out.
5. When I eventually reach the first dotted task, I do it. Then I return to step 1.
The faster you get those oldest tasks into play at the end of your list, the more opportunities they will have to be selected.
June 24, 2015 at 15:36 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.
<< I'm using both FV & FVP:
1. I dot the first active task on the list.
2. I scan down the list dotting tasks that stand out.
3. I do the last dotted task on the list.
4. I dip down to the end of the list after doing each task and dot any tasks that stand out.
5. When I eventually reach the first dotted task, I do it. Then I return to step 1. >>
But that *is* FVP. Where does FV come into it?
<< I'm using both FV & FVP:
1. I dot the first active task on the list.
2. I scan down the list dotting tasks that stand out.
3. I do the last dotted task on the list.
4. I dip down to the end of the list after doing each task and dot any tasks that stand out.
5. When I eventually reach the first dotted task, I do it. Then I return to step 1. >>
But that *is* FVP. Where does FV come into it?
June 24, 2015 at 19:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In a post yesterday I said:
"And it's perfectly ok to omit or skim the full scan if you know or suspect that there are no tasks which are likely to stand out beyond where you've got to. "
I'd like to add that it's also perfectly ok to omit or skim the scan if you don't *want* any more tasks to stand out, i.e. you want to work on the already dotted tasks only for a period. In which case you are basically doing what you do with FV.
Using this principle you can turn FV on and off as and when you wish without actually leaving FVP.
"And it's perfectly ok to omit or skim the full scan if you know or suspect that there are no tasks which are likely to stand out beyond where you've got to. "
I'd like to add that it's also perfectly ok to omit or skim the scan if you don't *want* any more tasks to stand out, i.e. you want to work on the already dotted tasks only for a period. In which case you are basically doing what you do with FV.
Using this principle you can turn FV on and off as and when you wish without actually leaving FVP.
June 24, 2015 at 19:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
"But that *is* FVP. Where does FV come into it?"
You're right, that is FVP! For whatever reason I've been doing it wrong the whole time! Ha. The rare times I've actually made it back to the first task I've been in the habit of starting over! Scanning back down the list and dotting tasks again, from the beginning. I think when you first introduced FVP, I saw the description of how one might never do the first task and formed an impression of what that meant. I guess I can now join the rest of you in actually using FVP. Ha!
"But that *is* FVP. Where does FV come into it?"
You're right, that is FVP! For whatever reason I've been doing it wrong the whole time! Ha. The rare times I've actually made it back to the first task I've been in the habit of starting over! Scanning back down the list and dotting tasks again, from the beginning. I think when you first introduced FVP, I saw the description of how one might never do the first task and formed an impression of what that meant. I guess I can now join the rest of you in actually using FVP. Ha!
June 24, 2015 at 23:03 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
nick61
"i sometimes feel resistance in scanning the list over and over again after the execution of each task"
You're only scanning downward from the task you just finished, comparing it to the nearest dotted task above, right? Try following the rules with a list of random numbers and you'll see that FVP is very efficient, it minimizes scanning.
"i sometimes feel resistance in scanning the list over and over again after the execution of each task"
You're only scanning downward from the task you just finished, comparing it to the nearest dotted task above, right? Try following the rules with a list of random numbers and you'll see that FVP is very efficient, it minimizes scanning.
June 25, 2015 at 0:09 |
Zane
Zane
Michael B.
<< The rare times I've actually made it back to the first task I've been in the habit of starting over! Scanning back down the list and dotting tasks again, from the beginning. >>
Do you mean you were re-scanning from the first task *before* you did it?
<< The rare times I've actually made it back to the first task I've been in the habit of starting over! Scanning back down the list and dotting tasks again, from the beginning. >>
Do you mean you were re-scanning from the first task *before* you did it?
June 25, 2015 at 9:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Zane:
<< FVP is very efficient, it minimizes scanning. >>
It hadn't occurred to me before, but I think you are right. There is less scanning in FVP than in FV.
<< FVP is very efficient, it minimizes scanning. >>
It hadn't occurred to me before, but I think you are right. There is less scanning in FVP than in FV.
June 25, 2015 at 9:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
"Do you mean you were re-scanning from the first task *before* you did it?"
Yep. Ha. Went right back to step 1: Dot the first active task on the list. "Oh, hey! Look at that. The first task is already dotted. And I may never have to do it, either. Great! I'll just scan down this list of mine, see if there's something I want to do more than that, and, mhmm, I'll dot that one there, and this one, and, oh, that one over there...dot, dot, dot. Hooray! Resisted task avoided."
"Do you mean you were re-scanning from the first task *before* you did it?"
Yep. Ha. Went right back to step 1: Dot the first active task on the list. "Oh, hey! Look at that. The first task is already dotted. And I may never have to do it, either. Great! I'll just scan down this list of mine, see if there's something I want to do more than that, and, mhmm, I'll dot that one there, and this one, and, oh, that one over there...dot, dot, dot. Hooray! Resisted task avoided."
June 25, 2015 at 11:32 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
On the other hand, page breaks and dismissals are key to AF1, and irrelevant in AFP. Those are serious differences.
On the other other hand (because I don't want three-armed mutants to feel left out), FVP came from FV which came from AF4, so who says this can't be AFP?
Alternatively, it could be "FVP-Q" for "Final Version Perfected Minus the Question."
Whatever its official name, I think it deserves a special place of honor on the "TM Systems" page!