I really like the new custom task type that was launched in the winter release 2025.
I have started using it and I have updated a key project I work on with my team.
I can select all tasks and change them to the custom task type which I created.
The problem is when I want to change the status of the custom type, I can only do it one task at a time, even when all tasks have been selected.
I would like to be able to change the status for all tasks in one go, just like I can change a custom field for a group of tasks in one go.
This is the one thing that for me stands in the way of adopting custom task types for reference projects.
Now a rule needs to be used to map custom field values against custom task statuses. As I think the point of these custom task types is to make it more straightforward needing this rule (and field) kind of defeats the point of having the custom task types with their statuses.
And I think it’s a hard sell when needing to add this caveat.
So far, with clients and custom task types my key use has been stages for pipeline workflows, and it’s natural (not convoluted!) to use List view grouped by these stages as the default view for the project.
Of course there are other uses for custom task types, but I think this is a natural one.
My thinking is this though: You can do all bulk changes using the bar that appears, so I train people to look for that bar to do any bulk update. Having to explain this as an exception and requiring a specific grouping to do a bulk update still sounds convoluted to me. Maybe convoluted is a strong word, but inconsistent at the least.
Also, last time I checked multi-select didn’t work with board view, which I commonly use for process workflows.
For reference projects I think this is less intuitive, which is my use-case a.t.m.
And another factor is that the people working in this specific project don’t do a lot of work in Asana yet, so I have an extra motivation to keep it as simple as possible.
Just want to be clear that I’m in support of this request (which I voted for when it was created), I’m not disagreeing with you, and I’m not negating your issues.
All I was trying to offer was a workaround that I expect would be of value to some people, and a clarification for others reading this that the new feature is not convoluted in one typical use case.