Things user wants to move to OmniFocus but struggles with single contexts.

[zoisite]

Hi,

Im a Things user but I did finally buy also a license for OmniFocus because I consider the later is much more powerful, has much more features and has more potential if used the right way.

But: I don’t know how to use it without the feature of assigning multiple contexts/tags to an action. Maybe I am doing it wrong by trying to imitate the way Things works. I understand that contexts are a different concept than tags. A context is a requirement and a tag can be anything. I think that tags are more powerful than contexts. With tags you can achieve more things, they provide more functionality.

No suggested solution to a similar question in this forum solved this problem for me.

An example: Let’s say I have the action „Call Bob about the work report of Tracy“. Which context would be the right one for this action? @Bob, @Phone, @work, or @Tracy. It has to do with Bob. I need my phone to complete the action. It is work related. And it has to do with Tracy.

You could argue to choose @Phone because this is the most basic physical requirement for this action.

But here’s my problem:

Assigning @Phone to the action „Call Bob about the work report of Tracy“ would show this action (in the context view grouped by context) only in one single context „@Phone“. There is no way to see this action from a different point of view. It would appear neither in the context @Bob nor @work nor @Tracy.

How do I set OmniFocus up to show me a list of actions related only to Bob, only actions where I need my phone, only actions that are work related and only actions related to Tracy?

In Things this would be a no brainer: I would assign all four tags (@Bob, @Phone, @work, @Tracy) to the task „Call Bob about the work report of Tracy“. This would allow me to filter my actions as I please. Wanna see all actions related to Tracy? Just filter by @Tracy -> boom its there instantly! Wanna see all the phone call actions that are work related? Just filter by @phone and @work -> boom right there!. You want to see only the spare time actions related to Tracy? No problem, just filter by @sparetime and Tracy -> boom its there!.

Things has its flaws, but you can’t deny that this Tag filtering system is super uber useful. You can filter for any Tag combination you wish and get instant results. Trying to achieve something similar in OmniFocus leads to redundancy:

@work:@Tracy
@sparetime:@Tracy

@Tracy:@work
@Tracy:@sparetime

Perspectives are great, but they do not provide a way to look at actions from different viewpoints (like work related things, spare time things in combination with a particular person etc.).

Some of the solutions to this problem I read in this forum do not solve this for me:

„Tags clutter your organization system.“
No they don’t if you keep their amount low and know how to organize them.

„Use flags.“
Flags can have several different meanings: „this action is super important“ or „this action is not so important, but I flag it to not forget this today“. I see a danger of semantic confusion.

„Use @Tags in the comments field of each action and use the search field.“
This is not a practical solution. I did not buy OmniFocus to have to do that manually. This supports no auto completion, no sorting, no focus view, it is slow, it is unreliable and cumbersome.

„Use folders to separate work from spare time actions.“
Then I would have to check every folder separately. This provides not a single view where you can see everything at once filtered the way you want to look at all you actions. In Things the only „folder“ I ever have to check is the „Next“ view: there I can see every task I have - if I like to focus on different aspects I just filter by tags and see instantly only the task that I want to see right now. The next view in Things is dynamic. This is very important. „Next“ is one list that can contain anything you want. For those of you who don’t know: the tasks in „next“ are of course sorted by area/project or they can be sorted by due date. It is not confusing. On the contrary, I find it very intuitive and well organized.

„Thou shall not mention tags or multiple contexts, this is evil blasphemy against the will of thy only Lord GTD!“
Well, call me an agnostic atheist :)

The solution could be so simple dear OmniGroup developers:
Provide the option to use tags for those OmniFocus users who aren’t true GTD believers. The GTD rigorous disciples don’t have to use them. Everyone is happy. Group hug time.

Multiple contexts or tag support in OmniFocus would be the coffin nail for Things.

This lack of tags doesn’t allow me to use OmniFocus. It irks me every time I try to work with OmniFocus. Why is such a Imho intuitive and super useful feature not in OmniFocus? Man, GTD is not a religion, or is it? :)

I would appreciate any suggestions from former Things users who, like me, could not live without tags but finally managed to get around this problem in OmniFocus! I really want to move from Things to OmniFocus :)

Thanks in advance.

ps: Just found out that the forum software allows you to add tags to your post. What irony! :)

[Arild]

You have some points in your post, but my objection is this:

I use OF as clean as possible. I use Evernote for jotting down thoughts and different angles - not OF. Having tried Things myself, my experience is that I spent far too much time thinking through possible perspectives/tags that could be of use when performing the task. They weren't - not for me anyway. At the end of the day, all I really needed was @Call (not @phone, since my phone can do more than conversations). If need be, I search for the person I'm talking to in Evernote (or even OF - I have contexts for persons where I put issues I need to discuss without knowing if it is going to be in person, phone call or email). You mention an example where your task spells:

Call Bob about the work report of Tracy

That is plenty of information for me. I can easily find everything containing "Tracy", "Bob", "report" in all of my "action" perspectives in OF. I did exactly what you did in Things, but it never made me more efficient, nor wiser. There simply wasn't any gain in breaking my task into morphemes. It did not improve my intellect, nor the quality of my work.

I still do appreciate looking at info/data from various points of view though, probably like you. But what it seems you want to achieve with tags is for me more logical to do in a free form database, or a strongly customised relation database. There is dedicated software for that: Evernote, Devonthink, Soho Notes, etc. They offer such "angles" without you needing to apply numerous tags. What these can't offer is good task management - although they do have task options. As you understand, my app for that is Omnifocus.

In the future, it might happen that someone actually integrates these (today) very distinct categories of my workflow into one single UI successfully, but they all have a long way to go for that to happen. And I am not sure I want everything in one interface; too easy to be distracted...

[Lucas]

I think OmniFocus really isn’t set up for say, finding all of the things you have to do for Carol that are work-related. I think that OmniFocus is more arranged to provide a list of things you could be doing, or at least, that is the approach that I have always taken. If you have a list of tasks in the Calls context, and you’re by a phone, I think OF is set up to push you to just do all of your calls. If you don’t go to the Calls context but instead go to the Agendas group, well, maybe you didn’t call Bob but you did call Alice. I think for some people the tag everything with every relevant keyword is better - i.e. maybe Things fits their expectations better. To me, as long as I fill up my time with things to be done in the rough order of their importance, I don’t really get concerned about whether the next thing that I’m doing is the exact right perfect next thing. Once it is done, whatever tags were attached to it don’t really matter.

If you search around the forums you’ll find a lot more perspectives on this. People who have been around the forum for a while have probably responded to this question a few times before and aren’t going to be excited to rehash their suggestions.

[zoisite]

Thanks for you reply Arild.

I’m not talking about so called Personal Information Managers (PIM) like Devonthink, Together or CircusPonies Notebook. Those are apps to collect reference material (pdf, images etc.). They are made for different purposes. Their items are not actionable. I’m talking about Tags in gtd like apps.

Having tried Things myself, my experience is that I spent far too much time thinking through possible perspectives/tags that could be of use when performing the task.

For me it is the other way around: I have 4-7 tags in Things that are more then sufficient for my needs. Assigning them to tasks is not a big deal because you can assign more than just one. In OmniFocus I do spend far too much time thinking through possible context cascades simply because I can assign one, just one solely context. The decision in which context to put an action has infinitely more weight to it.

Why does someone assign contexts to actions? As I understand it, to see all available actions in the context view according to his current context/situation. E.g. if you are physically at the hardware store you click on your context action list „@hardwarestore“ in order to see which items to buy there.

Here is another simple example. „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“. Ok that’s goes into the „@Errands:Hardwarestore“ context. When I am at the hardware store I click on this context in action view and know what to buy. So far so good.

But: Let’s say I meet with Bob before I did purchase the item for him. Let’s say I forgot the task to buy item xyz for Bob - it is currently not on my mind (nor in Bobs mind). „Hi Bob, how are you? Let’s check my @Bob context to see what we need to discuss (that is the whole point of an GTD app - your external brain, it reminds you to do things you have/want to do)“. The hardware action is missing from the @Bob context => I did not discus this important task of buying item xyz with Bob. => Bob fires me. :(

This would not happen with Things. :)

Now imagine that the contexts @Hardwarestore and @Bob has 100++ actions. You would never find the action „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ in the @ Hardwarestore context view. OmniFocus doesn’t give you any hint, that there lies an action in the @Hardwarestore context list that is related to Bob. Thats my gripe: In OF you have to know where to search something - you would have to actively search for the string „Bob“ in the @Hardwarestore context action list. And when the lists are large you will have a hard time...

In Things you do not have to know or remember anything. All the semantic information for all the view in wich you would like to see the task is stored within the task itself: filtering by the tag @Bob shows „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“.

Ok the example is overly simple and silly but only for the sake of clarity. It explains my whole point. The context @Hardwarestore is simply nothing more than one way of looking at the action „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ among others. The flaw I see in single contexts is that they „hard code“ one particular view of the numerous possible views to an action item and blank out the other views that might have the same information value for you as the @Hardwarestore view. This narrows your awareness. There is no „best“ view, no „best“ context to choose from. All can be equally important (By „all“ I mean 2-4 views that have a practical meaning to you). Tags show you the whole thing and allows you to look at it according to any possible situation (=context) that has a semantic conection (that has a meaining to you) to that action.

The benefits of tags are so obvious to me. I don’t know how to explain this much simpler. I feel that using tags in very intuitive. It just feels right. It is the proper way for me to handle an action.


I use OF as clean as possible.
It did not improve my intellect, nor the quality of my work.


Please don’t try to rationalize the lack of tags in OmniFocus. This is really problem, at least for me. In this forum exist many post that ask for tags or multiple contexts. If it works for you, great! Maybe you don’t see the need for tags - other users do.
Thats grandiose GTD ideology mumbo jumbo for me. I see OmniFocus as a useful tool, not as the road to enlightenment. Let’s talk practical. :)

[Mango Himself]

Guys,

you are over-complicating something that should be so easy.

What's next?

To go to the bathroom: @bathroom, @Errands:supermarket:buy toilet paper, @toilet paper:hold in hand, @Hand:usage, @Usage:motions, @motions:voluntary, @motions:involuntary, etc.

GTD is not about tags. It's about contexts. Things is of a vertical hierarchy while OF is both vertical and horizontal. Keep the contexts as few and as simple as possible. Errands, Calls, EMails, Next ought to be more than enough.

[zoisite]

@Lucas
I think OmniFocus really isn’t set up for say, finding all of the things you have to do for Carol that are work-related. I think that OmniFocus is more arranged to provide a list of things you could be doing.

You got it right. At least you understand what my point is.

@Mango Himself
To go to the bathroom: @bathroom, @Errands:supermarket:buy toilet paper, @toilet paper:hold in hand, @Hand:usage, @Usage:motions, @motions:voluntary, @motions:involuntary, etc.

You’re attacking a straw man that doesn't really exist. Tags, as I use them are few general atoms that don’t go to much into detail. They are meaningful only in combination with the description of the task. I used Things naturally and by intuition from day one. Things never feels complicated. It is OmniFocus thats complicated for me.

No sane person would ever create such a task, but to use your example:
„To go to the bathroom“ @Home @Urgent
Just two tags are enough. :)

GTD is not about tags. It's about contexts. Things is of a vertical hierarchy while OF is both vertical and horizontal. Keep the contexts as few and as simple as possible. Errands, Calls, EMails, Next ought to be more than enough.

Sounds good in theory. Practically the arouses the problem in which of the possible meaningful contexts to actually put the action? What solution do you suggest to avoid the danger of missing an action because it has, by bad luck or chance, a context assigned to it that does not match your current situation? Assigning it back to the @Bob context only postpones the problem: When you are at the hardware store you will miss the action in the contexts action list @Hardwarestore

But: Let’s say I meet with Bob before I did purchase the item for him. Let’s say I forgot the task to buy item xyz for Bob - it is currently not on my mind (nor in Bobs mind). „Hi Bob, how are you? Let’s check my @Bob context to see what we need to discuss (that is the whole point of an GTD app - your external brain, it reminds you to do things you have/want to do)“. The hardware action is missing from the @Bob context => I did not discus this important task of buying item xyz with Bob. => Bob fires me. :(

Please use my concrete example. How to avoid missing the „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ action when looking at the @Bob context when nothing hints/reminds me that there is an very important action that is related to Bob waiting in the @Hardwarestore context?


Guys,

you are over-complicating something that should be so easy.

In Things that problem is super simple solved with tags.

Ok Mango Himself.
Please suggest a not „over-complicated" and easy solution to that problem in OmniFocus. :)

[Lucas]

Yes, OF is not going to remind you when you’re talking with Bob that when you are at the hardware store, you are going to buy something for Bob. I think the uncomplicated OF view is that either the task is to ask Bob about something that you are going to buy for him (in which case, the Bob context, obv.) or the task is that you are buying something that you have no further need to discuss at the hardware store (errands context).

But it is entirely possible that that doesn’t make sense for you, in which case, maybe Things is better. I’m personally much more of a fan of forums where, if I’ve responded to people’s requests for help, that they just say thank you and either try it or don’t try it, but don’t then argue about how I’m wrong.

[Greg Jones]

Just a couple of thought because, as Lucas offered, the subject of tags (and task priorities) has been beaten to death. Tagging offers some interesting options to add rich meta-data to your tasks, and I can understand how it is/can be beneficial. Things has tags, OmniFocus currently does not. The OmniGroup has indicated that they will be looking at adding the ability to input user meta-data in OmniFocus 2.0, but for now it is what it is.

Bottom line is that Things also has a Today view that is nice, while by default OmniFocus does not (a perspective can get similar functionality). Many people believe that Things has a more attractive UI, but as the OmniFocus UI has themes, many people prefer to customize the UI of OmniFocus. Many people believe that Things has an advantage due to its simplicity, while OmniFocus can be just about as simple or as in-depth as the user wants to make it. Things Touch does have the ability to email tasks while OmniFocus iPhone does not.

On the flip side, OmniFocus has parallel and sequential tasks, sub-projects, cloud syncing, project review functionality, custom perspectives, custom toolbar with built-in commands and scripts, scheduled tasks on the Mac and the iPhone with start times, due dates with due times, alarms through Growl/Prowl, and iCal, bookmarklet to add tasks from Safari, the iPhone has Locations Services customized to contexts, imbedded browser, photo support, voice note support, repeat task support, and a completely customizable interface through the use of synced perspectives and icons while Things Mac and Things Touch... do not.

http://grab.by/grabs/49a6ec3bc39f048e4955f781a3f16d74.png

In the end, it all comes down to what features are most important to the user. If tags are essential to your workflow, then I doubt any of the solutions that the OmniFocus users have will make a difference in your decision. However, if the areas where OmniFocus really excels are important, then there are other ways to get much, if not all, of the functionality of tagging.

Using the Bob/hardware example, let me share a few ways that I might handle this:

1) Due Date: If Bob is going to fire me if I forget to buy xyz at the hardware store, then I'm going to assign a due date to complete the task. If I am running errands and I see the task a week early when I check my @errands context, then I go ahead and complete the task. If I have not run errands in a while, the due date arrives, and I have not yet bought the item, then I'm on notice from the due date that I'll be making a special trip to the hardware store.

2) Daily Review: I examine my projects to see where I am with my active projects and what I need to focus on today. If I were to see that the hardware item must be purchased in the next 4 days and I'll only have the time to run the errand today, then I'm going to block the time on my calendar to do it today.

Personally I find that the daily review, judicious use of start and due dates, and flags in addition to contexts gives me everything I need to keep tasks from falling through the cracks.

[zoisite]

@Lucas
I’m personally much more of a fan of forums where, if I’ve responded to people’s requests for help, that they just say thank you and either try it or don’t try it, but don’t then argue about how I’m wrong.

Sorry, my english is obviously not so good. You did misunderstand my comment to you. I meant it 100% positive. You got hold of the wrong end of the stick (hope that saying is grammatically correct).
With „At least you understand what my point is“ I wanted to express that you are the only one who replied and who understood my point and gave constructive feedback instead of criticizing the Tags concept. „At least someone got it right“.

@Greg Jones
Thanks for the very useful info.

Its great to see users replying with the intention of the thread creator in mind, instead of writing Tags are a bad concept.

I guess I have to accept that OmniFocus has its own ways. Or I continue using Things at least till OmniFocus 2.0 is released.

[Toadling]

Its great to see users replying with the intention of the thread creator in mind, instead of writing Tags are a bad concept.

For the most part, I think you'll find the community surrounding OmniFocus to be really supportive and well-intentioned. There are many enthusiastic users here that selflessly volunteer an immense amount of time in helping others. It's really quite amazing and a huge benefit to the "platform" as a whole.

The Omni Group themselves have been instrumental in fostering this kind of community. They've repeatedly demonstrated a sincere interest in their customers. They want you to buy their apps, of course, but even more important than that is that you're satisfied, even if that means refunding your money and seeing you switch to a competitor's product. It's got to be some of the best customer service in the industry.

-Dennis

[whpalmer4]

There are many enthusiastic users here that selflessly volunteer an immense amount of time in helping others.
Of course, OmniFocus makes us all so efficient that we've the got time to burn :-)

[zoisite]

I never had to ask someone about how to do something in Things. I just did it. It just worked for me. For OmniFocus I have to ask how to use it efficiently.

On the other hand OmniFocus is much more powerful. For this reason I’ll keep my OmniFocus license. Maybe some of the pre 2.0 updates will introduce features that make it work for me.

Can someone please release OmniThings? :)

[Toadling]

I never had to ask someone about how to do something in Things. I just did it. It just worked for me. For OmniFocus I have to ask how to use it efficiently.

The learning curve in OF is unquestionably steeper, but like you said, the app is much deeper.

I suspect it also has something to do with what one is accustomed to and one's willingness to experiment, keep an open mind, and explore different approaches. As you've found, the workflow of one app isn't directly transferable to the other without some adaptation, regardless of which direction you go.

FWIW, my experience was the opposite of yours: having started with OmniFocus when it was still in alpha, it has always seemed straightforward and logical. When trying out Things, on the other hand, I found it to be a bit convoluted and troubling in many areas.

-Dennis

[Ken Case]

Please use my concrete example. How to avoid missing the „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ action when looking at the @Bob context when nothing hints/reminds me that there is an very important action that is related to Bob waiting in the @Hardwarestore context?

It sounds like this task actually has two separate actions which you could complete independently, one which you would do in the @Bob context and another which you would do in the @Hardwarestore context. In OmniFocus, you would model this by breaking down the task into those two subtasks ("Talk with Bob about buying hardware item xyz @Bob" and "Buy hardware item xyz @Hardwarestore").

In OmniFocus, you can decide whether you need to talk with Bob before buying the item (by making the group sequential), or after, or both (by putting in two Bob actions), or neither (by making the group parallel). Or you could even check in with Bob every week until the entire project is done (by making the Bob action repeating). None of this flexibility or clarity is possible unless you actually break down the task into its individual actions.

I suspect that might be one reason that Things needs multiple tags: when you can't break down your work into individual actions (since Things has no support for subtasks), you end up with multi-step tasks which you need to be reminded of in multiple contexts.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something about how multiple tags would be helpful for a single action?

[Ken Case]

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something about how multiple tags would be helpful for a single action?

Actually, you've already mentioned one more case where I could see wanting multiple tags, and that's where I actually have separate actions which could accomplish the same end: for example, I can either talk with Bob by meeting with him at the office or by calling him on the telephone.

In that case, the fundamental context for the action in question is actually @Bob, rather than @office or @phone: whether I'm talking with Bob on the telephone or in person, I can pull up my Bob context and see everything I should talk with Bob about.

But if I need a reminder to actually interact with Bob (on the telephone or in the office), I can add separate actions for "Call Bob @telephone" or "Meet with Bob @office"—either of which will throw me into the @Bob context and help me get all my @Bob actions done.

Usually, though, adding a due date is sufficient reminder for me: I see that I need to get that task done today and that it requires that I talk with Bob, so I walk over to his office or give him a call or send him email or whatever.

Hope this helps!

[Mango Himself]

@Greg,

great analysis. The dilemma between using Things or OF reminds me of two applications for Palm that were very similar and are still around.

Bonsai by Natara was the equivalent of Things. Simple, pretty, easy to use. Shadowplan by Codejedi was the equivalent of OF. Powerful, lots of features and with a learning curve. It was a matter of choice. Most technically oriented individuals leaned towards Shadowplan as is the case with OF. However, both apps could work fine.

I think with Things and OF, the key is to find which one works fine for you and live with it. Somehow, I see more requests for additional functions at the Things forums. Why is this? Because OF has most bases covered. It's a very rich application and their customer service is legendary.

I've read a lot of reviews for both apps and two were influential in selecting OF at the end. One, from a popular blog, said "When you purchase a product you purchase the company behind it." I totally agree. The other one was from a client who called Omni and said that not only did the rep didn't badmouth Things, he actually praised it. That approach is the approach of an individual who is so sure of his product that he doesn't need to bash the competition. BTW, the person ended purchasing OF.

The one thing (pun?) I do see as a common denominator among Things supporters is the aggressive approach to the forums, almost insulting to the other forum members. One has only to visit Things forums to see how thick the ambience is. OF forums, on the other hand, are a breath of fresh air. I always learn something new and leave with a sense of accomplishment. Keep it up guys!


Greg, Just a question: where did you get those icons on the iPhone?

[Greg Jones]

Greg, Just a question: where did you get those icons on the iPhone?

A couple of them will be familiar to Things users, some are obviously included in OmniFocus, and three of them I cannot remember where I found them. That's a pity too, as they all came from a large, free collection site with a lot of quality icons. If I can recall the URL, I'll update my post. Meanwhile, here they are individually.

http://grab.by/grabs/33d89fd6b0ed7114dc41ff5a40f5bfd8.png

http://grab.by/grabs/8562909b4077dbefae852657c6990b70.png

http://grab.by/grabs/b8a08a8e99762b1bc703ee13ba5768a2.png

[Mango Himself]

@ Greg

thanks Greg. How did you place them in your iPhone? Is that an actual shot of your iPhone's screen?

Thnaks

[CatOne]

@ Greg

thanks Greg. How did you place them in your iPhone? Is that an actual shot of your iPhone's screen?

Thnaks

You set them up in OmniFocus on the desktop. Custom perspective icons will be synched to the phone.

[zoisite]

Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes sense to me!
Thanks Ken! Yes, you solved the Bob problem! I begin to see the possibilities.

My mistake was to bundle two actions into one. The solution is really this: define exact and concrete actions. If needed splitt it.

The Things side in me starts to rebel:
One could say that splitting one action into two is just a trick to emulate the "multiple tags" feature. Just a trick to introduce multiple contexts from the back door at the cost of redundancy. The new action "Talk with Bob about buying hardware item xyz" is just a place holder dummy that only exist to add another context to it. You'll end up having redundant actions to make up for the lack of multiple contexts.

Don't worry, I understood that "buy the item" and "talk to bob" are different actions. In OmniFocus I have to have a different approach.

The main advantage that I see in Things is that it allows you to be more vague in the description of a task without messing up: One task and two tags are sufficient for the Bob problem.

I see it as positive thing to be able to be vague. This allows you to have to think less about how to organize a taks in the system. Vagueness allows you to just write it down. This is only possible because Things provides some infrastructure that supports this.

In OmniFocus you have to describe the action as precisely as possible. You are free to do anything, but you are free in "empty space". You have nothing to build on, no predefined basic structure as in Things. You have to find out how to manage projects, contexts and actions. If you don't know how to organize your tasks in OF you're lost.

Hope this helps!

I find your explanation very helpful. Especially that you showed that you understood that I come from the Things/tags view point. I now begin to see how I could put a system in organizing my tasks in OmniFocus.

I think I'll transfer my Things tasks in OmniFocus and using both for a while until I get used to the OmniFocus way. Thank you very much!

[MacDork]

Actually, you've already mentioned one more case where I could see wanting multiple tags, and that's where I actually have separate actions which could accomplish the same end: for example, I can either talk with Bob by meeting with him at the office or by calling him on the telephone.
I have another example that might be a better example of why I'd like to be able to set more than one context to an action.

EXAMPLE 1
---------------
Let's say I have an action "Buy OmniFocus" and it's context is @online.

I have access to the internet from home and at work. I COULD create an @online context independent of my @Work and @Home contexts, but the need for discrete versions of @online can also be made, thusly:

-- "Catch up with facebook friends" @work/online is a no-no.
-- "Read super secret work document" @home/online won't work because I don't have vpn

In the case of "Buy OmniFocus", it's appropriate and suitable to set it's context to either/both "@work/online" or "@home/online". If I could set it to both, I'd be reminded to buy it when I was both at home and at work.

EXAMPLE 2
---------------
"Buy milk"
@grocery store
@gas station
@walmart

[jbkendrick]

While Ken's position makes sense, to me it would be better to be able to assign multiple contexts to a single action.

One example that is very common in my GTD implementation is to assign @waiting to tasks waiting for a reply. However, then when I have Joe on the phone, and pull up his context, I will miss the fact that I am waiting for Joe to reply to my earlier inquiry.

On the other hand, if I assign the task to @joe, it is not possible for me to check in on all of my waiting tasks during my weekly review.

If I could assign @waiting and @joe to a single action, my bases would be covered. This is certainly better than creating a separate task for each, as they are truly the same task, not different.

One very important asset we already have in OF is sub contexts. Doesn't handle the issue being discussed here, but I just wanted to mention it because this is a unique feature of OF contexts as far as I know.

Tags vs. multiple contexts is a little tricky for me. I believe that I would prefer taking OF contexts to the next level rather than introduce an additional feature to work around the lack of multiple contexts. John

It sounds like this task actually has two separate actions which you could complete independently, one which you would do in the @Bob context and another which you would do in the @Hardwarestore context. In OmniFocus, you would model this by breaking down the task into those two subtasks ("Talk with Bob about buying hardware item xyz @Bob" and "Buy hardware item xyz @Hardwarestore").

In OmniFocus, you can decide whether you need to talk with Bob before buying the item (by making the group sequential), or after, or both (by putting in two Bob actions), or neither (by making the group parallel). Or you could even check in with Bob every week until the entire project is done (by making the Bob action repeating). None of this flexibility or clarity is possible unless you actually break down the task into its individual actions.

I suspect that might be one reason that Things needs multiple tags: when you can't break down your work into individual actions (since Things has no support for subtasks), you end up with multi-step tasks which you need to be reminded of in multiple contexts.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something about how multiple tags would be helpful for a single action?

[Lucas]

I have another example that might be a better example of why I'd like to be able to set more than one context to an action.

EXAMPLE 1
---------------
Let's say I have an action "Buy OmniFocus" and it's context is @online.

I have access to the internet from home and at work. I COULD create an @online context independent of my @Work and @Home contexts, but the need for discrete versions of @online can also be made, thusly:

-- "Catch up with facebook friends" @work/online is a no-no.
-- "Read super secret work document" @home/online won't work because I don't have vpn

In the case of "Buy OmniFocus", it's appropriate and suitable to set it's context to either/both "@work/online" or "@home/online". If I could set it to both, I'd be reminded to buy it when I was both at home and at work.

I also have both work and non-work online contexts, and over time all of my contexts have become pretty much mutually exclusive. Not exclusively, but nearly always, there is only one best context for any action. To me, the “Buy OmniFocus” is not a work/online action because you’re not working when you’re doing that action. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that you can do it while you’re at work, but keep in mind that you have your non-work/online context with you at work. For me, I start with my work contexts and start from the top, and when I want a break from work for a while, then I go to my non-work contexts and start from the top. A benefit of having only one context per action in this example is that when you’re working, you’re not reminded about buying OmniFocus: you’re only reminded about working. When you’re not working, you’re reminded about OmniFocus, and not reminded about working. It is a different approach, but I think it has its benefits.

[Toadling]

In the case of "Buy OmniFocus", it's appropriate and suitable to set it's context to either/both "@work/online" or "@home/online". If I could set it to both, I'd be reminded to buy it when I was both at home and at work.

You might be able to handle this by creating a "work" and "home" subcontext under your "online" context.

But I do it slightly differently. First off, I don't make a distinction between being online at work or online at home (i.e. based on a geographic location -- I can be on the Internet from just about anywhere).

Instead, I have a generic "Internet" context. This covers all generic Internet access, whether I be at home, the coffee shop, the library, or going through the proxy server from work (allowing me to get onto the Internet from behind our corporate firewall). And it can be from any device: MacBook, iPhone, or some other machine.

I also have an "Intranet" context for things that can only be done on my employer's network. So sitting at my Mac and connected to my company's network (whether that be remotely via VPN or on site in the office), I can select both my Internet and Intranet contexts from the sidebar (using Command-click) and I get a list of everything that can be done under the current conditions. If I leave the office or close my VPN connection, I can select just my Internet context for the appropriate list of actions.

You could go further and add subcontexts beneath the Internet or Intranet contexts (e.g. "web", "email", or some specific online tools or websites that might only be accessible from your Intranet or that you'd only want to outside of your employer's network).

I find this approach works very well for me.


EXAMPLE 2
---------------
"Buy milk"
@grocery store
@gas station
@walmart

As for your second example, I think most people just use nested contexts, maybe something like this:

-Errands
----Shopping
--------Grocery Store
--------Gas station
--------Walmart

General errands (e.g. "return library books") could go in the "Errands" context. General shopping actions (i.e. items that could be purchased at the grocery store, gas station, or walmart) go in the generic Shopping context. And items that can only be found in a specific store (perhaps you have a coupon for that store or they stock your preferred brand or whatever) go in the lowest level context for that particular location (e.g. Walmart).

Adding the ability to tag or use multiple contexts would certainly be another way to slice and dice your data, and I'm not against its inclusion in a future version. But OmniFocus as it is right now has already been designed to handle these situations. Which approach you favor really just depends on what you're used to and how you like to work.

Personally, I find making discrete, atomic actions like Ken mentioned along with nesting of projects, action groups, and contexts gives me immense flexibility and a very nice heiarchical perspective on my data that makes it very easy to visualize and assess at a glance. Of course, YMMV. :-)

-Dennis

[Toadling]

One example that is very common in my GTD implementation is to assign @waiting to tasks waiting for a reply. However, then when I have Joe on the phone, and pull up his context, I will miss the fact that I am waiting for Joe to reply to my earlier inquiry.

I handle this by simply Command-clicking the second context so both "Waiting" and "Joe" actions are displayed.

-Dennis

[whpalmer4]

I have another example that might be a better example of why I'd like to be able to set more than one context to an action.

EXAMPLE 1
---------------
Let's say I have an action "Buy OmniFocus" and it's context is @online.

I have access to the internet from home and at work. I COULD create an @online context independent of my @Work and @Home contexts, but the need for discrete versions of @online can also be made, thusly:

-- "Catch up with facebook friends" @work/online is a no-no.
-- "Read super secret work document" @home/online won't work because I don't have vpn

In the case of "Buy OmniFocus", it's appropriate and suitable to set it's context to either/both "@work/online" or "@home/online". If I could set it to both, I'd be reminded to buy it when I was both at home and at work.



Instead of having @work/online and @home/online, have @online, @online/home, and @online/work. Stuff you can do either at home or work goes in @online, stuff that has to be done at one or the other goes in the proper subcontext.

[Ken Case]

One example that is very common in my GTD implementation is to assign @waiting to tasks waiting for a reply. However, then when I have Joe on the phone, and pull up his context, I will miss the fact that I am waiting for Joe to reply to my earlier inquiry.

On the other hand, if I assign the task to @joe, it is not possible for me to check in on all of my waiting tasks during my weekly review.

I think that the reason it makes sense to combine "Waiting" with other contexts is because it's actually a separate task state (like Active, Completed, On Hold, and Dropped) rather than a real context. Would it make sense for us to make it a task state like the others for OmniFocus 2?

Disclaimer: I don't use "Waiting" myself; if I'm waiting for a resource before I can continue with a project, I just defer the project (using a future start date) until my waiting conditions are met so I can continue. (If I need to remind Joe about it, I set up a @joe task which repeats every few days until I get what I need from him.) But I know Merlin and others use Waiting a lot, and I certainly do want to support that workflow for people who find it useful.

[Toadling]

Would it make sense for us to make it a task state like the others for OmniFocus 2?

Oh, that's a good idea. I think I'd like that very much.

-Dennis

[Brian]

The main advantage that I see in Things is that it allows you to be more vague in the description of a task without messing up: One task and two tags are sufficient for the Bob problem.

I see it as positive thing to be able to be vague. This allows you to have to think less about how to organize a taks in the system. Vagueness allows you to just write it down. This is only possible because Things provides some infrastructure that supports this.

In OmniFocus you have to describe the action as precisely as possible. You are free to do anything, but you are free in "empty space". You have nothing to build on, no predefined basic structure as in Things. You have to find out how to manage projects, contexts and actions. If you don't know how to organize your tasks in OF you're lost.

I just wanted to say that I think this is a really great encapsulation of the different approaches that OmniFocus and Things take to the same underlying task, and that the most important takeaway is that neither approach is wrong.

I suspect that OmniFocus and Things both reflect the preferred work style of the folks that wrote them. That doesn't make either one more correct; just different.

I know for a fact that there are big chunks of folks that think each app got it totally wrong. For OmniFocus 2, we're going to do our darndest to create an app that gives you as much of the upside of both approaches while exposing you to as little of the downsides. :-)

[MacDork]

To take things one step further, we could do away w/ multiple tags entirely if:

sub-contexts could belong to more than one context.

Imagine having a way to edit the @Home context and tell it what other contexts it contains.

@Home could contain things like
-- @phone
-- @online
-- @mac
-- @pc

@Work could contain
-- @phone
-- @online
-- @pc

Extending it further, we could do @Mall contains
-- @hardware store
-- @grocery store
-- @electronics store

Using this sort of organization, we could simply remember that buying milk is "@grocery store" and not have to worry about "I want to get groceries before I go home today, so add that to @work/grocery store".

[curiousstranger]

@Lucas

Please use my concrete example. How to avoid missing the „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ action when looking at the @Bob context when nothing hints/reminds me that there is an very important action that is related to Bob waiting in the @Hardwarestore context?



I think the "GTD" answer to this is that you can't buy the item from the hardware store when you are talking to Bob, so there is no reason it should be in a Bob context. If you're using it's existence in a Bob context to remind you to go to the hardware store, you should instead be using your regular reviews of your active projects for that purpose.

[zoisite]

For OmniFocus 2, we're going to do our darndest to create an app that gives you as much of the upside of both approaches while exposing you to as little of the downsides. :-)

I asked for this in my first posting:
The solution could be so simple dear OmniGroup developers:
Provide the option to use tags for those OmniFocus users who aren’t true GTD believers. The GTD rigorous disciples don’t have to use them. Everyone is happy. Group hug time.

Multiple contexts or tag support in OmniFocus would be the coffin nail for Things.

That is what I would like to see. Do it!

[Guntis]

Multiple contexts or tag support in OmniFocus would be the coffin nail for Things.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for! Multiple contexts/tags would be very helpful. Even if it doesn't become coffin nail for Things, it still will be very useful feature.

[Guntis]

And if you could add iCal week-view bar somewhere… it could be at the top or at the bottom, main thing is to see what's in iCal for today or tomorrow, or when I set due date for some action.

[jbkendrick]

That's an interesting work around Dennis, thanks. Unfortunately, that also requires me to scan through all the waiting tasks looking for a name for whom I'm waiting (which in creating the task is another unnecessary step), and more importantly will not work on the iPhone. Much of the time I check in on personality contexts before a meeting starts, or when I see someone in the hallway, and all I have is my iPhone. John

I handle this by simply Command-clicking the second context so both "Waiting" and "Joe" actions are displayed.

-Dennis

[reallyseth]

I cannot remember where I found them. That's a pity too, as they all came from a large, free collection site with a lot of quality icons.


On a side note, I found the icons from Greg's post. They're here: http://templay.de/Downloads/52/Free-Mobile-Berries.html

You have to register, which was a little difficult considering the page isn't in English. But I finally figured it out!

[eurobubba]

Ken, I hope you're not telling us that tagging is not coming to OmniFocus after all! Multiple contexts are far from being the only possible use of tags.

[Arild]

I think that the reason it makes sense to combine "Waiting" with other contexts is because it's actually a separate task state (like Active, Completed, On Hold, and Dropped) rather than a real context. Would it make sense for us to make it a task state like the others for OmniFocus 2?

Oh, yes, absolutely. That would be fabulous.

[sfkeydel]

I would support making "Waiting" a task state, as well.

[CatOne]

Oh, yes, absolutely. That would be fabulous.

Agree as well. You can have "waiting" as the state, and then assign a person as the context. That would be very helpful.

[Robbie1702]

+1 to have waiting as a state. I suggested this to them ages ago and wrote about it in he forums and got slaughtered in conversation by the die-hards who tried to convince me it was better their way and the only way to indicate "waiting for" should be a context. To make waiting a state makes so much more sense! No changing contexts, no creating new contexts, no hacking scripts...

I'm so pleased I'm not th only one who thinks that way =)

Although I also think, as you say, a state (like on hold or dropped) would be best way to implement it, it COULD also be done with a tag...

Please don't forget all these features for OF Mac Omnigroup. Don't put you sole focus on the iPad. Seriouly... You won't go bust if you bring out all these features in OF 2.0 for Mac! I promise. =)

[curt.clifton]

Would it make sense for us to make [waiting] a task state like the others for OmniFocus 2?

I use waiting contexts a lot. A waiting task state would work great for me, provided it blocked subsequent (sequential) tasks. Appropriate filtering options would also be needed. It seems like a waiting task should be 'remaining' but not 'available'. We'd also might need a way to just show 'waiting' tasks in context mode for reviews. One very nice consequence of treating waiting as a separate task state is that waiting tasks could have a style to differentiate them.

[jbkendrick]

@Ken - now I get it. I thought I had read another of your explanations for why multiple contexts are unnecessary recently, and I didn't get the extra work of two tasks. But with this explanation, I get it. I can add one task, and two subordinate tasks, each with a different context. If one is dependent on the other I make them sequential, if completing one of the two will suffice, I make them parallel, and simply tick off the parent task when I talk to one of the parties.

My waiting context would require a bit more work, but I guess I can make the parent context waiting, and a repeating subtask with the context of the party involved, making it repeat weekly until I get an adequate answer/action, and then check off the parent.

Thanks - after using OF everyday for over a year, I've learned something very valuable here. John

[cbeams]

Folks mentioning the 'Waiting For' idea may be interested in this feature request I just submitted: http://bit.ly/aMCTa6

[whpalmer4]

It seems to me that the need illustrated in your example vanishes entirely if you execute your tasks from Context mode, rather than Planning Mode. Switch to Context mode, show Available tasks, sort or group by project if you want to see tasks from the same project together. I am assuming this is a sequential project, of course.

[elektroglide]

I just wanted to say that I think this is a really great encapsulation of the different approaches that OmniFocus and Things take to the same underlying task, and that the most important takeaway is that neither approach is wrong.

I suspect that OmniFocus and Things both reflect the preferred work style of the folks that wrote them. That doesn't make either one more correct; just different.

I know for a fact that there are big chunks of folks that think each app got it totally wrong. For OmniFocus 2, we're going to do our darndest to create an app that gives you as much of the upside of both approaches while exposing you to as little of the downsides. :-)

let's hope apple don't bring out more new classes of device which divert omni development resources away from OF2 ; )

how is that OF2 roadmap coming along by the way?

[mobilejorge]

As a Things user as well, I think its undeniable that Tags are super useful and allow for further customization views that Perspectives currently is not supporting ie, Project Perspectives, Perspectives are very good but only for context right now and since one can't assign multiple contexts per views then they can't replace tags. In another post I suggest searchable text fields and then came to the realization that those are Tags, jaja. In that Things is better than OF, that OF has more options, so true and as a customer for both iphone/desktop its obvious to me.

Guys enable tagging and let use them View option(glasses menu) add another column for that and most are problem with Project Perspectives would be gone because one just tag the project and sort by specific tag which would make sense in my humble opinion and not redraw things. Also if a Project is tagged with any tag automatically let it children inherit that tag/s very slick and powerful.

[svsmailus]

This has been a really good thread to read.

I've tried just about every GTD app out there and none fit the bill. I'm currently using things, but have OFand attempted to use it several times, but never succeeded.

My simple problem with OF is the lack of a "people" criteria. Everything said so far is great in terms of what is the next action and where does it need to occurr. Hoever, I am responsible for people and I need a way of being able to see everything related to one person easily. For all its functionality, this is not possible in OF. Some of you know doubt will say use a context, but this kills my GTD. It means I have to check every context related to every individual every day to see if there are any actions pending. In Things I can just tag each action related to an individual with its correct context and the person it relates to. By calling up the person's tag I see every task related to them.

The other danger I see with OF is that because you have to be so specific with only one context it invites the user to create to many contexts. In Things I have around 10 contexts. I would be interested to hear how many contexts you are all using in OF.

If I could crack the "people" criteria I would definitely us OF as Things has no OTA sync.

[Brian]

svsmailus, can you give us an example of the kind of action you're struggling with? When I delegate an action to or need to talk to a particular person, I just assign it to their context 99% of the time. (I don't also put it in my "email" or "phone" context, in other words.)

Here's a post (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=76136&postcount=11) where I describe the system I use for these kinds of actions in more detail. If that doesn't cover what you're trying to do, let us know; once we have a better understanding of the kind of actions you're struggling with, we may be able to help.

[Brian]

I would be interested to hear how many contexts you are all using in OF.


I have one general purpose "Errands" context which contains another 9 contexts meant to be used with the the location/mapping feature in the iOS apps. (Business searches for "Pharmacy", "Grocery Store", and "Apple Store" for example.)

I have 7 other general-purpose contexts like "Mac", "Wife", "Home", and "Phone".

I then have a whole bunch of Person and Task-group contexts related to my work at Omni, but that's what happens when you're middle management in a 40 person company. :-)

(Despite the 40-ish contexts, it works out fine. I'm able to find the stuff I need when I need it.)

Hope this helps!

[devastat]

My contexts are
Active:
@Work, @JobApplication, @Home
@Mac, @PC, @Email, @Phone
@Research, @Study, @Thought
@Finance, @Bill, @YNAB (You need a Budget program)
@WebDesign, @Editing, @RWeaver (Rabid Weaver program)

Inactive:
@Waiting, @Someday, @Info

[svsmailus]

Thanks for your reply Brian.

I'm a church minister. I'm responsible for 120 people and have around 20 people that I interact with on a weekly basis. Out of those 20, 10 people are folks I interact with daily.

An example of my situation is that I may need Jane to do a number of things. I need her to arrange some appointments for me, email me a list of maintenance jobs, and check how she's doing with the annual planner. This would look like this:

Call Jane to make appointments @call
Email Jane and ask her to send me a list of maintenance jobs that still need doing @email
Email Jane to check how she's doing with the annual planner @email

However, I may meet Jane in the course of the day at which point I want be able to see all of these tasks related to her.

Another example of this is if I needed to check what Jane's workload is I can check everything she's been assigned or will be.

[svsmailus]

thanks Devstat,

If I remember you are a convert from Things?

Any idea how to get people working in OF?

[devastat]

Hi,

You are correct I am a convert. I forgot to mention above that I do use people as context as well. For example @Will etc..

I don't have that many people delegates so it works out for me, but I do agree with you if you have to delegate a lot of tasks to people it does get tricky (as you cannot assign another context into the same task). I hope that omnigroup will create a people functionality in Omnifocus in the future.

However, if I would have to delegate lots of tasks to different people now, what I would do is I would add @Person into the beginning of the task and that would come up in search. Other option would be to create a folder for the person, but you will lose the relation of the task to the project..

[Brian]

Call Jane to make appointments @call
Email Jane and ask her to send me a list of maintenance jobs that still need doing @email
Email Jane to check how she's doing with the annual planner @email

However, I may meet Jane in the course of the day at which point I want be able to see all of these tasks related to her.

Another example of this is if I needed to check what Jane's workload is I can check everything she's been assigned or will be.

This is one of those "your mileage may vary" situations, of course, but I didn't get much mileage out of tracking calls and email separately - in my system, all those actions just go in the @jane context. Most of the time, I just need to talk to Jane to get the task done.

(In the rare cases where I do need to specifically carry out a task over the phone or email, I do what you did - include that information in the title of the email.)

[svsmailus]

The problem with putting them all in @jane is that I would then need to do that with all the other people I'm responsible for. It also means that if I want to see all the calls I need to make I have to go through all the Agenda contexts. This would be untenable for me as it would leave too much for me to remember and of course go against the GTD principal of not relying on keeping things in your mind.

[atreinke]

Maybe I'm not understanding this but I actually find this fairly easy. If I have an action that is specific to a person I always start the action with the name of the person. Example:

John: send specs on project X...............email
John: ask him to define scope better.........call

Sue: discuss travel plans....................agenda

I give each action the correct context: call, email, agenda (if I want to talk about something in person), etc.

Then, if I need to find all actions relating to John I just do a search for John (I use last names if needed). That way I can see the actions in their correct context when I am "doing" since I like to work from a context perspective, but if I happen to see or call John I can grab everything at once by doing the quick search.

[svsmailus]

I've come to the conclusion that this is the only option. However, can you set up perspectives that will focus on only those people? It would then be easy to be able to create different perspectives of the top people I need to track.

[Arild]

Having large groups of people or tasks is my primary reason for choosing OF over Things after trying both and not the other way around...
There are, it seems, two strategies for your issue: 1) Searching for people or 2) Using context groups.

Before you try the first one, I would recommend to consider context groups. For people management, I have two groups: @waiting for (on hold, for tasks assigned to others) and @people (for tasks that can be done face to face, chat, email, phone, Facebook etc. etc.) These two groups have their own respective perspectives. Then, John will appear in two contexts, of course, but this I find safer than searching as misspelled names are avoided this way. This strategy is also brilliant for other groups, like @Mac : Home and @Mac : work. If I only need my Macbook, @Mac suffices, but if a secondary premise occurs, I can specify. Likewise, I will not bother to create a specific "@people : (name)" context before I am certain that the person will be frequently appearing in my workflow. In those cases I am more likely to use @call or @email (no names).

In my workflow I always consult my @people contexts before calling or mailing collaborators, whereas vendors and the like will not appear there at all, normally. Yes, I do have many contexts, but I find that certainly more manageable than having to think through possible tags to add to a task. But it must be stressed that this approach requires an active use of perspectives.

I could elaborate more, but I think the guru of this approach was whpalmer4, you could do a search for his posts (thanks for a lot of useful input, Bill!)

Good luck, anyway!

[petvas]

I have used Things and Omnifocus extensivelly. While I am not entirely into GTD, I have read all tutorials and have a fair understanding of how Omnifocus and Things work. Having multiple tags is nice, but I have found another way to deal with it: Folders!

Let me give you an example: In Things I have a tag named Heidi (my dog :) ) and under that another three: Health, Care and Food. If I want to buy some food for Heidi I would just create a task inside the area Heidi (which is also a tag in this example) and assign it the Food tag.
In Omnifocus I have a folder named Heidi and underneath it subfolders for each tag in Things. Under each folder there is a single items project where all relevant tasks reside.
I have struggled a lot in order to find out how to use contexts in a way that makes sense for me. I decided to create contexts to show the time and complexity of the task. I have created these contexts:

Someday
Waiting for
Delegated
Effort: High
Effort: Medium
Effort: Low
Milestones
Planned
Needs preparation
Trip required


Now to get to your example, I think I would just have a folder named Bob and underneath it maybe another folder named hardware store. I don't know if that is too complicated or if it is the best way to make Omnifocus work, but it works for me well..

[awlogan]

I've been trying folders as well, and it works for organizing the higher level planning, but it's not as effective for me in getting to the data I need. I think what most of the tag / people contexts are asking for is a dynamic way to get to a list of actions given a different environments.

If I'm not ready to focus on a large task or don't have time before the next meeting, maybe I want to pull up my @email list and get going. At the same time my boss or direct report may drop by my cube. It is entirely possible that something in the @email list is for them, and I may be able to get rid of it right there, but I would have to search through the list.

Having either a tag or second context for people would allow me to quickly pull up my list. Asking them to hang on a minute while I try to figure out what I have for them is just less efficient. Sure, it can be done, but it doesn't support the fast and flexible nature of software over paper lists or using something like a text file.

I've been using OF on Mac, iPhone, and iPad and could not live without it at this point. But I think this is minor functionality that could make it much better. I would also support the ability to hide tags / second contexts for those purists in this thread that don't find it useful. Again, it's software, that's an easy compromise that would make both groups happy and productive.

[skillet]

The Omni Group themselves have been instrumental in fostering this kind of community. They've repeatedly demonstrated a sincere interest in their customers. They want you to buy their apps, of course, but even more important than that is that you're satisfied, even if that means refunding your money and seeing you switch to a competitor's product. It's got to be some of the best customer service in the industry.

-Dennis

I whole heartedly agree!