NEED assign to multiple Contexts [Archive]

ksrhee

2007-11-27, 12:58 AM

I really try to think of contexts in terms of "what do I absolutely need to have to accomplish this task?". If you think of them in this way (and you're rigorous about your processing) there is really very little if anything that needs multiple contexts. For example, in Brian's example the only essential thing there is Sue, since it doesn't matter how he communicates with her, so I'd put it in the @agendas context under Sue, or in @Sue if I had it set up that way. In ptone's phone call example, do you actually need to refer to anything that's in your office when making that call, or do you absolutely need to use work's phone line (if it's an international call, for example)? If so, it goes in @office. If not, it goes in @calls as all you need is any phone. I invite other problem cases to see if I can knock them down. :)

I disagree with SteveW's definition of contexts - I think that mood, days of the week and goals aren't contexts. For me, mood/energy is one of the factors you use in choosing what to do (along with context, time available and priority). Tasks specific to a day of the week go on my calendar ("hard landscape" as David Allen calls it) for that day. Goals go on my 20,000ft, 30,000ft etc. lists as appropriate depending on their timescale and scope.

Finally, how would adding tagging to OF make things simpler? Isn't it just another layer of stuff to fiddle with?

I would agree with you on this one. I used to think having multiple contexts would be a useful tool. Some programs would call it having multiple categories, etc. However, after using OF for several months, I have gone away from this thinking. I would argue that multiple contexts are great when it comes to organizing (planning?), but not so effective when it comes to taking action. After all, isn't context view all about taking action, not planning?

Besides, the way I use OF now would make using multiple contexts almost impossible. How would you handle the UI issue if you are displaying multiple contexts? If I assign a task into multiple contexts, would they show up in all contexts? This would duplicate the task across multiple contexts I'm looking at, and it would just make things more confusing than helpful.

Also it would artificially create higher # of tasks I need to complete. For instance, when I scan the context sidebar I would see 4 tasks needing to be done, but no, it's only one task assigned to 4 contexts. This would not be accurate.

As far as an example someone provided about making a phone call to a person, I think it really comes down to your own situation. If you are a person who is likely to make multiple phone calls to your clients when you are making phone calls, then it makes sense to put the item into phone since this is where your action needs to take place. However, if you have client called Sue, and you need to keep track of all the things you need to take care of her when you see her or work on her project, then I would put it under Sue, not under phone. So, when I'm working on "Sue," it would show me that I have to call her, write a report for her, etc.

I think multiple contexts not only make things more complicated in terms of UI, but probably not an effective way to manage one's time or tasks.

Now some of you might argue that I should only be looking at only one context at a time (e.g., phone, etc.), but that's not really helpful or realistic. Let's say I have contexts labeled @phone, @office, and @computer. All those are different contexts, but could be applicable when I'm in my office. I can make phone calls in my office, work on my computer, etc. So, how do I decide what to work on at this moment, or how do I decide what to work on in the morning when I come to my office? Well, I need to scan these multiple contexts in order for me to decide what needs to be done first at this moment, not only look at the @office context. Having the same task show up on all these contexts would not be helpful for me.

Remember, OF is designed not simply to help organize our lives but also get things done so that we can be more effective. I think there is ever a greater temptation to over organize our lives and not enough impetus to move us to get things done. In this respect, I appreciate OMNI folks for showing restraints for not jumping into creating more features into the program.

Also, I think it's great that there are now multiple product out in the market offering their own unique approaches to organizing or getting things done. I think we need to select a tool that would make us become more effective in what we do. So, I'm all for having diversity in this arena and not for OF to be a clone of some other program. In the long run, I think OF will be more successful sticking to a overall system that makes sense rather than trying to incorporate every feature that we want.

eronel

2007-11-27, 01:54 AM

Multiple contexts create the possibility of a kind of sloppy ambiguity; are the contexts OR'd or AND'ed? When a task is in @Email and @Phone, they are probably OR'd. How about when a task is in @office and @computer?

If OF had multiple contexts, or tags for contexts, I'd probably find them useful and use them, but I fear this kind of sloppiness would appear and create a kind of cognitive dissonance that would subtly affect my confidence in my system. On second thought then, maybe I wouldn't use them.....

mcoad

2007-11-27, 04:59 AM

“Sloppy ambiguity”... “Cognitive dissonance”... “If you’re rigorous you don’t need them”... Phew! Please, everybody, a rule of thumb: GTD good, dogma bad. I love a good theoretical discussion as much as the next dude, but GTD ain’t religion and nor is OF even designed specifically as GTD app, as the Omni folks themselves emphasize. People will differ over good GTD practice”, whatever that is, and anyway most other explicitely GTD apps do indeed include multiple contexts on one guise or another. Other users will only be dimly aware of the minutiae of GTD, but still have perfectly satisfactory systems for which OF is a brilliant tool, and for most of them the lack of multiple contexts is glaring. One person’s sloppy ambiguity is another’s necessary flexibility.

In short, many users do indeed find that they require multiple contexts. If you don’t like them, you don’t have to use them, for crying out loud. So what - UI issues apart - is the problem?

eronel

2007-11-27, 05:46 AM

I'm sorry if I put you off. Dogma does not appeal to me either.

In the first paragraph above I was bringing up a potential problem with tagging.

The second paragraph is my personal thoughts. I wasn't trying to compel you or anyone to agree with me. In the end, I was able to make a decision for myself about how I would or would not use tags.

mcoad

2007-11-27, 06:07 AM

Sorry, too - I was a bit heavy, I realize, using your quotes like that when other posts were the ones I was talking about more. I couldn’t resist “cognitive dissonance”! Seriously, though, I meant that a simple and very reasonable request was getting drowned under a flood of arcane theoretical noise, very worthy as much of this may be. It’s something I’ve noticed elsewhere in the forum - though generally it’s a very good forum, with excellent discussion.

Me, I feel much the same about tags as you warn about multiple contexts. I like the latter very much but am wary of the former, and don’t think they’re exactly the same (especially after seeing the potential chaos tags could produce in Things, or so it seems to me; there, contexts are just another subset of tags). But I certainly wouldn’t oppose the use of tags on some ground of GTD theory if they’re what help a large proportion of users and don’t fundamentally throw the app out of kilter.

Cheers

Malcolm

eronel

2007-11-27, 06:56 AM

I couldn’t resist “cognitive dissonance”!
Yeah, maybe that was a teensy bit excessive. :)

Seriously, though, I meant that a simple and very reasonable request was getting drowned under a flood of arcane theoretical noise, very worthy as much of this may be. It’s something I’ve noticed elsewhere in the forum - though generally it’s a very good forum, with excellent discussion.

There's been an explosion of posts and new members on the forum since the OF alpha went public. Lots of brand new users/posters mixed with oldsters is bound to create some chaos. I bet it'll settle down somewhat. Overall I find the discussions thought-provoking.

Me, I feel much the same about tags as you warn about multiple contexts. I like the latter very much but am wary of the former, and don’t think they’re exactly the same (especially after seeing the potential chaos tags could produce in Things, or so it seems to me; there, contexts are just another subset of tags). But I certainly wouldn’t oppose the use of tags on some ground of GTD theory if they’re what help a large proportion of users and don’t fundamentally throw the app out of kilter.

Ditto. Though it might be nice to disable the display of any tag-related interface elements if they take up screen space or are really in-your-face.

matiascuba

2007-11-27, 07:22 AM

Then you have completely misunderstood the concept of getting things done. You will end up with hundreds of combinations and your task list will be cluttered and not at all doable.

mcoad

2007-11-27, 07:44 AM

Then you have completely misunderstood the concept of getting things done.

Oh, great, here we go again. This is exactly the kind of absurd aggressiveness nobody needs. Just make your point. Which is...

You will end up with hundreds of combinations and your task list will be cluttered and not at all doable.

I have the same doubts - about tags, not multiple contexts. But, before slinging around accusations of total misunderstanding, go and have a look at other apps such as Things. This is a specifically GTD-based app, but tags are fundamental to it. Do they “completely misunderstand the concept of gettings things done” too? These are reasonable questions and merit reasonable discussion.

al_f

2007-11-27, 07:47 AM

“Sloppy ambiguity”... “Cognitive dissonance”... “If you’re rigorous you don’t need them”... Phew! Please, everybody, a rule of thumb: GTD good, dogma bad. I love a good theoretical discussion as much as the next dude, but GTD ain’t religion and nor is OF even designed specifically as GTD app, as the Omni folks themselves emphasize. People will differ over good GTD practice”, whatever that is, and anyway most other explicitely GTD apps do indeed include multiple contexts on one guise or another.

I think if you read my post again you'll find that I was only saying what works for me, not that you should work like I do. Maybe you don't agree, maybe someone will read it and think "Hey, that might work for me". I kind of think that's the point of a discussion board, isn't it?

Anyway, it doesn't matter - in my opinion, having tasks appearing in multiple contexts would be confusing on a UI level, as eronel and krshee point out. The fact that multiple contexts aren't strict GTD is irrelevant.

mcoad

2007-11-27, 08:05 AM

I think if you read my post again you'll find that I was only saying what works for me, not that you should work like I do. Maybe you don't agree, maybe someone will read it and think "Hey, that might work for me". I kind of think that's the point of a discussion board, isn't it?

Anyway, it doesn't matter - having tasks appearing in multiple contexts would be confusing on a UI level, as eronel and krshee point out. The fact that multiple contexts aren't strict GTD is irrelevant.

There’s a contradiction between these paragraphs, isn’t there? On the one hand you say you are only explaining what works for you, not imposing, but on the other you assert flatly that “multiple contexts would be confusing on a UI level”. Isn’t that a matter of opinion and styles of work? Personally I think tags would have that effect but not necessarily multiple contexts (that’s one of the reasons I won’t be using Things). Evidently, many people out there find the restriction of not having multiple contexts far more of a problem than such possible confusion. Kshree has tried it out for a while and changed opinion, but is not insisting on the matter, and nor is eronel. If the option existed and you found it confusing in the way you describe, you wouldn’t have to use it, but that’s no reason to deny it to others.

I agree with kshree: “OF is designed not simply to help organize our lives but also get things done so that we can be more effective.“ For some that will mean single contexts, for others, multiple ones. What, I repeat, is the problem?

iNik

2007-11-27, 08:22 AM

Interesting discussion, especially the thought of the differences between a context and a location (as opposed to a mood, available reference materials, etc.).

I struggle daily with the "Agenda" and "Errands" problems that people mention here. I may need to buy things at multiple stores, but generating a context for each is madness. If I'm going shopping, I don't want to dig through a million and six contexts to find what I need. (Yes, we could throw them into a folder, if folders existed in Context view, or use a perspective, but it's still a rather heavyweight and crowded solution.)

For myself, I have a context of "Calls" which I use pretty much only for one-shot phone calls. (Make an appointment, ask for balance on phone bill, etc.) I also have an "Agenda" context that I throw things I need to contact someone about, but I don't really care how I contact them. I do NOT have an email or meeting context.

When I feel like making calls, I check the calls AND agenda contexts and see what's in there. (Agenda items contain the person's name toward the beginning e.g. "Tell Bob about new widget procedure") A perspective makes this easy. Similarly, when I find myself ON the phone with somebody, I check for Agenda items with their name and chat with them about it.

And then we get into "I'm at the office so I can do 'computer' things, 'calls', and many 'agendas' as well as the 'office' tasks" and how to categorize that. Frankly, this is where perspectives shine. I just create an appropriate perspective and I'm all set.

Adding tagging is an interesting option, and might help bridge that gap. So might simply creating a "Work" context and then a variety of other perspectives (so work/computer stuff as well as work/phone stuff all ends up in the same bucket).

jasong

2007-11-27, 08:30 AM

I struggle daily with the "Agenda" and "Errands" problems that people mention here. I may need to buy things at multiple stores, but generating a context for each is madness. If I'm going shopping, I don't want to dig through a million and six contexts to find what I need.

I mentioned this in another similar thread, and I'll mention it here: OF has the ability to only display contexts which actually have items in them. While in Context mode, with the view bar turned on, select Active Contexts from the sidebar's popup.

Since this was introduced a few months ago, I'm more comfortable having more (specific) contexts. If I wanted to list every store I buy from, I could, and not feel like my contexts were overwhelming.

Journey

2007-11-27, 08:57 AM

A few thoughts about the discussion ...

The option of single or multiple contexts being allowed in the program could be a preference setting. That way people who want to assign only one context to an item would be able to enforce that. It might be good to have that preference, and to have it set to only one context / item so that when a new person starts using OF it starts out more simply as they get used to the program and then if they turn it on later they will be more focused on the effect of multiple contexts rather than having that on top of trying to learn everything else about the program.

As someone mentioned, yes -- an activity that has multiple contexts would show up in more than one place when in context view. That is exactly what I want. One context that I use is "Out and About". That way not only "Errands" get assigned to that but anything that I need to get in my car and drive for. I could have many different activities that I would need to be "Out and About" for, but if I only had one context, a more important one would be used.

Someone mentioned that it would require more tasks to check off. No -- checking off a task within any context would complete it -- it's all the same activity.

One thing I like about the GTD methodology is the concept of an in basket, in which tasks are unloaded from the mind and dumped into it. If I can have only one context / activity, I end up spending a lot of time trying to think of what my context hierarchy could look like, and when I am viewing things in Context mode I would end up having to scan all the items because an item that should be in multiple contexts won't show up under every context where it should be.

Multiple contexts allows me the simplicity of "offloading" items from my mind. I have an activity, I think of all the contexts involved, I assign them, and I then know that when I look at things in context view, I can look at any context and know that all the associated activities are there. "Phone Sheryl about new restaurant" could be under "Phone", "Sheryl", and "Fun Activities" contexts. If it were only under "Phone", then when I look at things in context mode I know that I can't rely on all-things-Sheryl being in that context, so then I end up having to scan the entire list of activities in the context mode.

Multiple contexts can be confusing, but let's face it -- the way OF works is confusing at first, then powerful once someone learns how to use it. The same would be true of multiple contexts.

And, having it as a preference setting would satisfy those who don't want multiple contexts.

If the developers want me to test a version with multiple contexts or work with them to brainstorm this more, I would be happy to do so "behind the scenes". I could help test the alpha-alpha of multiple contexts release :-)

Journey

2007-11-27, 09:05 AM

Then you have completely misunderstood the concept of getting things done. You will end up with hundreds of combinations and your task list will be cluttered and not at all doable.

The task list from the Project view will be nice and clean. The task list from the Context view will have all the tasks associated within a context where they are supposed to be (including an activity that naturally doesn't fit into one).

In context view, you aren't looking at everything as a whole. You look at a context and are assured that if you specified all the natural contexts for an activity, that it will show up there -- and it will show up under other contexts where it belongs.

It would only be cluttered if you aren't thinking in terms of contexts.

If only a single context can be assigned to an item, when I look at a context I would not have the assurance that all items for that context are there if only a single context can be specified for an item. I would want all-things-Sheryl to be under "Sheryl" and all phone calls I need to make under "Phone". If I can only assign one context, I won't be able to look at "Sheryl" and know that everything is there because I might have been forced to assign only one context that makes it show up elsewhere. So, I end up having to scan the other contexts for Sheryl-related items.

mcoad

2007-11-27, 09:05 AM

Interesting discussion, especially the thought of the differences between I may need to buy things at multiple stores, but generating a context for each is madness. If I'm going shopping, I don't want to dig through a million and six contexts to find what I need.

Right, but would this really happen? Obviously if something can proliferate there’s a danger of it getting out of hand, but is this a reason for restriction to one? Sounds mighty timorous to me. Of course there’s a real danger of a tool that’s designed to help us get organized actually making things even more of a hassle, because you end up spending more time worrying over the tool than you did before when you were only confused by the plethora of tasks! (I think a lot of us forum posters are beginning to feel that about now!) But if this is true of potentially proliferating contexts, so it is also of being obliged to force everything into single contexts. More so, in my limited experience so far.

To follow your example above, shopping need not be madness because you can already use subcontexts in OF. So something can go under the general category of shopping or under a particular store and its there whether you’re going to that store or on a more general shopping trip. Multiple contexts would provide the same kind of flexibility but without restricting us to subcontexts within preexisting contexts, or jumping through hoops to make things fit. So, if I’m a film buff and I want to get hold of a newly released Kurosawa DVD, I can put it somewhere in “Shopping” and in “Murgatroyd” (because I know my mate Murgatroyd has a copy he could lend me), and in “film rental store” if I want to see if its available there (and I don’t want this under Shopping). Then, whether I‘m going shopping, or calling Murgartroyd about something else, or planning to go to Blockbusters for something lighter for the kids, it’s there and there’s no risk of forgetting it because it’s stuck immutably in one of the others.

Okay, stupid example, as they all tend to be, and my brain’s softening with too much time hanging out at the forum, but you see the point. This may involve some proliferation of contexts, but they can also be disposable or only activated in case of need, and surely it’s not beyond most of us to keep this in order. At least we had the nous to get OF, after all.

If I’ve missed something in all this, please come down on me like the proverbial ton of bricks. Meanwhile, I still want multiple contexts.

PS - Journey just posted - excellent. Couldn’t agree more.

al_f

2007-11-27, 12:36 PM

There’s a contradiction between these paragraphs, isn’t there? On the one hand you say you are only explaining what works for you, not imposing, but on the other you assert flatly that “multiple contexts would be confusing on a UI level”. Isn’t that a matter of opinion and styles of work?

OK, for the pedantic amongst us I have edited the second paragraph to contain the words "in my opinion". Quite how anyone could think that one overdue task causing several counters to appear in the sidebar (one in each context in which it appears) wouldn't be confusing is beyond me, however.

Journey

2007-11-27, 01:05 PM

OK, for the pedantic amongst us I have edited the second paragraph to contain the words "in my opinion". Quite how anyone could think that one overdue task causing several counters to appear in the sidebar (one in each context in which it appears) wouldn't be confusing is beyond me, however.

It isn't confusing if one understands the need for multiple contexts and what the context view would then represent. "Phone Sheryl about New Restaurant" could be in the "Phone", "Sheryl", and "Fun Things To Do" contexts, and it would be only natural each context shows the counts.

Again, if someone wanted to only have one context / action it could be a preference initially set to be that way and when one evolves into a greater understanding of how to use multiple contexts then the preference could be set to allow them.

Journey

2007-11-27, 01:07 PM

Note: when I say "evolves" in the prior post it's meant to be said with a smile on my face. I forgot to include the smiley however so here it is :-)

joelande

2007-11-27, 01:12 PM

One thing I like about the GTD methodology is the concept of an in basket, in which tasks are unloaded from the mind and dumped into it. If I can have only one context / activity, I end up spending a lot of time trying to think of what my context hierarchy could look like, and when I am viewing things in Context mode I would end up having to scan all the items because an item that should be in multiple contexts won't show up under every context where it should be.

Multiple contexts allows me the simplicity of "offloading" items from my mind.

Nice catch -

Now there is a a good GTD-point for all of those By-the-GTD-bible doctriners out there.

I too think allowing tags or multiple contexts would help clear the mind, which is a very important GTD concept -arguably the most important (besides actually getting things done!)

ptone

2007-11-27, 09:05 PM

Some good discussion here.

I'd like to make a couple points - the UI for adding additional contexts could be as simple as a comma.

There is a big difference between hierarchy (very powerful and useful) and relational (Many to one, one to Many).

A single action should exist in only one place in a nice normalized OF DB - duplicating it in multiple locations in the hierarchy is no good.

For those that argue that there is a logical single context approach to your data, I don't argue that. But the fact is that the human brain is not always a rigorous logical implement.

To continue with our somewhat simplistic example. At the time I create an action, the most logical context for it might be phone. But were I to create the same action at a different time I might think to put it under Sheryl. Now when I want to review my actions by context, I have to do a mental pause and consider which context I put it in.

An imperfect analogy. To perform an action in many applications, I have a choice, I can:

Select and item from a menu
Perform a keyboard shortcut
Use a contextual menu
Use a toolbar

Now, any ONE of those may be logical, but does that mean that the UI should be constricted to only use one of them? The great thing about this approach is that it casts a wider net that can catch peoples intentions through multiple parallel approaches, rather than require that everyone remembers the one way to do something.

-P

TheSteveW

2007-11-27, 10:22 PM

Great thread...

My comments about tagging had to do with the way my (ADD encumbered) mind works. I think (few) contexts are great for a rigid approach to GTD and if that works for you that's great.

Personally though I'd like the flexibility to quickly ask or add a quick note about, for example "OS X dev problems" without having to do a search. Since it's more of a hobby than a core element of my day to day work it doesn't make sense to create a context for it. If I did that I'd have hundreds of contexts - which then of course defeats the purpose of GTD as would the need to do a search. If I put it under a "hobby" context - again - I've got lots of threads in my brain. I want a tool to help me focus quickly.

Not every moment of every day is or should be (for me) driven by what I'm supposed to be doing. Sometimes I just want to "wander". Multiple contexts and/or tagging could be easily implemented as an option. If you don't want it simply turn it off in prefs and you have rigid GTD.

Of course this gets to the issue of diluting the basic functionality but how hard/disruptive would it really be to add a tag or multiple context filter to a context view? Would it fundamentally alter the tool or would it on the other hand possibly open it up to a broader audience?

Great thread and am enjoying reading and learning from all the different perspectives...

al_f

2007-11-27, 11:20 PM

I too think allowing tags or multiple contexts would help clear the mind, which is a very important GTD concept -arguably the most important (besides actually getting things done!)

Ah, but I disagree: to me if you put things in more than 1 context you probably haven't thought it through fully, as you haven't defined what is essential to doing the task. I prefer to do that thinking at processing time, so when I'm working I know for sure that I can do everything that's listed under the context that I'm in.

An example of how multiple context might not work is this: say you work with Sheryl and need to talk to her about a project. If you're taking a multiple-context approach you could put that in the 3 contexts office, sheryl and calls (assuming you don't need think you need to talk to her face-to-face). You bump into her in the cafeteria at lunchtime and check your Sheryl list: however, you then realise that actually you need to refer to some project materials in your office files during the discussion. So, the office context is actually the only one that applies in this case as you physically need to be there to have the discussion. OK, that's maybe a bit contrived, but for me GTD is all about making those kind of decisions when you're planning, not when you're working.

Like it or not, despite the people saying it isn't, at heart OF clearly is a GTD app: the project/context model is from GTD and OF is based on Kinkless GTD, which was explicitly a GTD app. While you might be able to use it for a non-GTD system, I think GTDers are the app's main target audience and that's where I think the feature set should be focussed.

Personally though I'd like the flexibility to quickly ask or add a quick note about, for example "OS X dev problems" without having to do a search. Since it's more of a hobby than a core element of my day to day work it doesn't make sense to create a context for it. If I did that I'd have hundreds of contexts - which then of course defeats the purpose of GTD as would the need to do a search. If I put it under a "hobby" context - again - I've got lots of threads in my brain. I want a tool to help me focus quickly.

I suppose again it depends on how you define a context, but for me "OS X dev problems" would be a folder in planning view (or a parallel project) and hobby would definitely be a folder in planning view. The actions in the projects in those folders would then be placed in contexts depending on the resources you need to get them done (computer, garage, hardware store/errands etc.). Would that work better for you?

Volker

2007-11-28, 03:31 AM

For example, I could buy a new shirt on-line or in a store. But I'm never simultaneously in my Web and Errands contexts, so I have to choose one.)

I think, this is a good example to express my idea, that not the tool is insufficient, but the definition of contexts may be incomplete.

Lets take your example where the shirt-task is assigned to Web and Errands. If I'm in a certain context, e.g. I'm standing on a street full of shops, I want to see all possible tasks for this context, say Errands. In your case of double assigning, I must take into account, that not all of Errand-activities are allowed in my current context. I have to look if the activity is assigned to further contexts, which forbid to do that task right now. This is in contrast to the GTD philosophy, which wants to keep your system simple: just look and decide - not to discuss, what is correct.

Therefore Errands seems to be the wrong context for the shirt-task. Imho it should be Web. Because if I'm sitting before a computer with internet connection, I can browse all my open Web activities and voila, there is my shirt-task.

If the Web context is too widly defined for your needs, e.g. you only want to shop online, if you're sure, your account has enough money, than simply define a context Web-Errands besides Web and Errands. The definition for the contexts would be:

- Errands: activities for physical shopping or similar activites
- Web: web browsing, e-mail, information collecton, reading news etc. but without shopping
- Web-Errands: Webshopping

I use two contexts for Errands. As I'm traveling a lot for my job, I'm using Errands_anywhere and Errands_homecity. The first context is defined for things, which are to big to transport with me in train or plain. So if I'm standing in a shop of a foreign city, my PDA presents me the correct activities only and doesn't bother me with unnecessary ones.

Conclusion:
The correct and complete definiton of a context structure helps to keep things - the decision process in certain contexts - simple.

mcoad

2007-11-28, 04:50 AM

This has become a really good thread, with some of the best and most instructive discussion on the forum. But even as the examples and usage scenarios multiply, the conclusion seems to get more obvious. Some users prefer the rigid single-context method, and find this better implementation of GTD. Others prefer multiple contexts, and find this implements GTD better (this, incidentally, is also the conclusion drawn by other GTD app developers: Things with its tags, Life Balance with its ability to place any number of contexts within any other context). So, obvious conclusion: allow multiple contexts, and those who find life better without them simply won’t use them, without the app being affected in any other way, while for the rest of us things will ease up greatly.

If only other feature issues were so simple.

ptone

2007-11-28, 05:10 AM

Ah, but I disagree: to me if you put things in more than 1 context you probably haven't thought it through fully, as you haven't defined what is essential to doing the task.

Two responses to this: In a busy day there may not always be time to so fully think out an action in the planning process. That may be the ideal, the goal to strive for, but not always the reality. If I'm trying to get through the inbox, process a ton of items, and I have to spend twice as long on each one to decide what is the perfect and true context, then I'm getting less done.

Also, you assume that every action has a single context that is necessary, while I would argue that some actions have no single necessary resource, but several that are sufficient. For those actions that have a essential resource requirement, then use a single context, but for those where there is more than one EQUALLY SUFFICIENT situation - multiple contexts increase your efficiency because you don't have to do the extra work (at planning or reviewing) to figure out which of the equivalent contexts it went into. There are uses of multiple contexts that would be flawed and lazy - but we all really do sometimes have flawed and lazy brains, so having a tool that works with us is better. (this is not to encourage lazy or sloppiness, just to acknowledge that what seems the "right" context at one time may not be apparent another)

...but for me GTD is all about making those kind of decisions when you're planning, not when you're working.

Many situations like the one you listed may require a single context. But one can be quite effective and more efficient if you didn't HAVE to always make that decision. Add an action, add 2 contexts. Search one of those contexts later (the one that occurs to you) see the action, do it. Done. No need to consider on both ends which is the truest context.

While you might be able to use it for a non-GTD system, I think GTDers are the app's main target audience and that's where I think the feature set should be focussed.

Other than perhaps dev resource time and some UI issues - I have yet to see any of the pro-single context voices articulate why allowing multiple contexts would negatively affect their ability to choose to use single contexts. It sounds mostly like religious differences.

-P

mcoad

2007-11-28, 05:24 AM

Other than perhaps dev resource time and some UI issues - I have yet to see any of the pro-single context voices articulate why allowing multiple contexts would negatively affect their ability to choose to use single contexts. It sounds mostly like religious differences.

-P

Exactly. But it would be good to hear from Ken or someone else at Omni on this. You’ve been very silent on this for a while, guys. Here’s hoping this is because you’re still open on the matter, watching and waiting...

eronel

2007-11-28, 05:40 AM

Two responses to this: In a busy day there may not always be time to so fully think out an action in the planning process. That may be the ideal, the goal to strive for, but not always the reality. If I'm trying to get through the inbox, process a ton of items, and I have to spend twice as long on each one to decide what is the perfect and true context, then I'm getting less done.
Exactly. That is the appeal of the tagging/multiple context approach.

... some actions have no single necessary resource, but several that are sufficient. For those actions that have a essential resource requirement, then use a single context, but for those where there is more than one EQUALLY SUFFICIENT situation - multiple contexts increase your efficiency because you don't have to do the extra work (at planning or reviewing) to figure out which of the equivalent contexts it went into.
Well said. That is the drawback of the single context approach. I find it especially bothersome for tasks related to people and shopping. Most of them can be done online, via telephone, or in person, unless there's something special about the situation or thing. But often I personally find that when I am not clear about how I want to accomplish something, I'm not really clear about what I want to accomplish. So for now I am sticking with single contexts.

Other than perhaps dev resource time and some UI issues ... It sounds mostly like religious differences.
You're right. It's both. But while dev resources and UI issues are not unimportant, they are likely to be decided by the OmniFolks. Religious differences can be fought out for centuries :-) .

Volker

2007-11-28, 05:48 AM

I have yet to see any of the pro-single context voices articulate why allowing multiple contexts would negatively affect their ability to choose to use single contexts. It sounds mostly like religious differences.
-P

From my point of view and many years of experiences about collecting and discussion user requirements, it has nothing to do with religion. I had to learn on the hard way, that one shouldn't accept any requirement without asking "why?".

Many required additional features were results from "bad" usage or "bad" personal workflow of the user. With adding the features, the products may become "monsters" like MS Word, with a lot of features but a bad user experience. In the above discussed examples for pro-multi-context, it seems to be, that the requirements for multiple contexts result from low knowledge how to define contexts.

Let's see it this way: OmniFocus is version 1 likely with a huge feature list to be realized in further versions. The OmniGuys have to set priorities about what and when to add do OmniFocus. And its not done with adding the GUI for entering multiple contexts. The data model and the onfollowing program processes have to be added and tested too.

OmniFocus has been presented from the beginning as successor of kinkless and tool for GTD. Therefore those user, who follow the GTD path according the given framework, want to see those proposed workflow and rules to be implemented first. Later on, there should be no problem to add additional feature outside the GTD philosophy, but (!) the overall program handling should follow the basic GTD rule "Keep things simple".

In case of the feature multiple contexts, this seems to be rigid. But the same discussion will arise with every GTD foreign feature. With the hole set of the feature, there might be the danger, that the user experience becomes worse.

Regarding the sentence "I have yet to see any of the pro-single context voices articulate multiple contexts would negatively affect their ability to choose to use single contexts.":

I have yet to see any of the pro-multiple-context voices articulate any reason, why their personal workflow couldn't be easily supported with the current system ;-) All examples show imho, that the system of contexts is not understood in full depth. Perhaps OmniFocus is not the right tool then.

joelande

2007-11-28, 06:26 AM

Two responses to this: In a busy day there may not always be time to so fully think out an action in the planning process. That may be the ideal, the goal to strive for, but not always the reality. If I'm trying to get through the inbox, process a ton of items, and I have to spend twice as long on each one to decide what is the perfect and true context, then I'm getting less done.

Also, you assume that every action has a single context that is necessary, while I would argue that some actions have no single necessary resource, but several that are sufficient.
-P
Yes it seems some of the discussion here is really trying to block people into corners.

Another area where I think multiple-contexts/tags are useful is in scenarios where there isn't much value in traditional contexts.

I work in IT. Long hours. Often when I am at home, I am working. Almost everything I do is at a computer. I am always online (or have the ability to be).

Traditional contexts of phone, email, computer just don't apply. I almost always have all of the tools I need to get almost any task in my list done.

I would find multiple contexts/tags useful.

Again, those that don't need or want them are not forced to use them.

Don't see what the problem here is.

joelande

2007-11-28, 06:38 AM

I have yet to see any of the pro-multiple-context voices articulate any reason, why their personal workflow couldn't be easily supported with the current system ;-) All examples show imho, that the system of contexts is not understood in full depth. Perhaps OmniFocus is not the right tool then.

If you don't think ptone's post 38:
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=26635&postcount=38

is that reason, then I think we just have different opinions.

It is the best reasoning I have seen so far, and well said.

brab

2007-11-28, 06:40 AM

mcoad

2007-11-28, 06:44 AM

Religious differences can be fought out for centuries :-) .

Please, no... Multiple contexts now!!! But your approach is great, Lenore - see what’s good in both, work it through, decide for the moment what’s best for you but leave the door open for others to take a different route. Power to you...

Journey

2007-11-28, 09:28 AM

Many required additional features were results from "bad" usage or "bad" personal workflow of the user. With adding the features, the products may become "monsters" like MS Word, with a lot of features but a bad user experience. In the above discussed examples for pro-multi-context, it seems to be, that the requirements for multiple contexts result from low knowledge how to define contexts.

I have used multiple contexts for a long time now implemented in other tools. Assigning multiple contexts for an activity isn't a result of low knowledge of how to define contexts. It is simply looking at an activity by itself, identifying all the useful contexts, and then assigning them.

The reality is that a real-life activity often doesn't fit into one context. In order to "free the mind", it is much simpler to assign the contexts that make sense when entering an item, rather than be paralyzed by having to define and adhere to a rigid "context hierarchy" and choice of only one of the many natural contexts of an activity.

One way that I implemented multiple contexts was to use a program called "List Pro" which is an outliner with the ability to add columns (similar to Omni Outline which I haven't had a chance to learn yet). I added a text column for contexts, and just separated the contexts with commas. To list all items for a given context, I would just do a filter on that column of "includes <context text>".

It was so nice to be able to just enter items and assign all the contexts, knowing that later I could list any of the contexts and be assured that everything related to that context would be there, rather than list a context and then try to also remember where other items may have been put because they had to be assigned a single context when naturally an item fell into more than one.

"Phone" actually had _all_ of the activities that I would do at my phone.

"Sheryl" actually had _all_ of the activities related to her.

"Fun things to do" actually had all of the ideas of fun things that I would like to do when I have free time.

"Phone Sheryl to see if she wants to go to new restaurant" would show up under the contexts of "Phone", "Sheryl", and "Fun things to do".

If I were to assign the activity to only "Phone", then when I look at "Sheryl" it wouldn't show up there, so I would either miss it, or I would have to not trust my context and try to decide what other single contexts I had forced the activity into.

If I were to assign the activity to only "Sheryl", then when I look at "Phone" it wouldn't show up there, so I would either miss it, or I would have to not trust my context and try to decide what other single contexts I had forced the activity into. I would be at my phone and would have a good chance of missing the activity.

If I were to assign the activity to only "Fun things to do", then when I see "Sheryl", I wouldn't just look under the context assigned to her, but would also have to think of all the other contexts a Sheryl-related item might have been forced into.

To free the mind, a GTD cornerstone concept, ...

- When entering activities, one just thinks of natural contexts the item falls into and assigns them, without developing or adhering to a single-context structure.

To free the mind, a GTD cornerstone concept, ...

- When in a context (with Sheryl, at the Phone, or with free time to do Fun things), one only needs to look at any of the appropriate contexts and is assured that they are complete, and doesn't need to then go through the mental exercise of trying to determine all other singly-forced contexts the item could be in.

As far as development effort, 1.0 release, and data structure of application, _alpha_ testing (and even beta) can be used to identify things early on, because the longer a change (that would be eventually implemented) is delayed, the greater the cost of implementing the change later is.

ksrhee

2007-11-28, 09:58 AM

As far as development effort, 1.0 release, and data structure of application, _alpha_ testing (and even beta) can be used to identify things early on, because the longer a change (that would be eventually implemented) is delayed, the greater the cost of implementing the change later is.

My understanding is that the feature set and UI are pretty much fixed, and Omni folks are just polishing the rough edges and ironing out the bugs. So, I don't think multiple contexts will show up in version 1, but as they said, who knows in version 2. However, given the current state, I don't think they can accomplish having multiple contexts w/o significantly revising the UI or their system.

I tend to categorize different time management programs into three broad categories; time-centric, project/task-centric, and context-centric. Even some of the programs that provide the ability to add contexts to me are not context-centric. For instance, MyLifeOrganized or Lifebalance fall into a combination of task-centric and time-centric, not context-cenric. In other words, their to-do list is either based on time or tasks/projects, not contexts. Of course, you can manipulate the list by context via sorting, filtering, etc., but the fundamental core of their system is focused on tasks or time.

OF is different in a sense that their context view is really context-centric. Of course, they built in enough flexibility to view the tasks in timeline, etc., but to me, the fundamental organizing scheme is still context, and this is where the power of OF really shines. Given this, I really don't think adding multiple contexts is not sensible as the program stands. Of course, you can have OF create a new UI and add bunch of codes to make the other views possible, but then there is always the danger of OF becoming a bloatware. Now at some point, they might be able to incorporate tags as filters (since flag is a rudimentary form of tag), and if folks want to use tags as second or third contexts, then I guess that's possible.

Of course, others might argue which system is better or worse, but that really comes down to how you use your system to organize your life.

I might be completely off base in my analysis, and if so, Omni folks or others can chime in.

mcoad

2007-11-28, 10:33 AM

I don't think they can accomplish having multiple contexts w/o significantly revising the UI or their system...

...Of course, you can have OF create a new UI and add bunch of codes to make the other views possible, but then there is always the danger of OF becoming a bloatware.

I’m no programmer so may be missing something crucial here, but I don’t understand why adding multiple contexts would substantially change the UI, much less risk bloat or require a new UI altogether. All that would happen is that in Context mode tasks would show up in the right pane in more than one context, and in the contexts column in Planning mode there’d be several contexts rather than one. Everything else would be identical, wouldn’t it? If so, what is the problem?

If I’m being naive, please do enlighten me/us. So far, while there’s been a lot of explanation from opponents of multiple contexts of it’s undesirability on GTD principle and assertions that it would screw up the interface, I’ve seen no actual explanation of how the latter would happen.

Thanks Journey for your latest post. It’s the clearest exposition so far, and just about unanswerable, I’d have thought - though of course nothing ever is. At least it is now clear just how important the multiple context idea is to many of us. The more I use the app, the more frustrating this lack becomes, almost to hair-tearing proportions - a real downer in what is otherwise such a superb tool.

ksrhee

2007-11-28, 10:40 AM

I’m no programmer so may be missing something crucial here, but I don’t understand why adding multiple contexts would substantially change the UI, much less risk bloat or require a new UI altogether. All that would happen is that in Context mode tasks would show up in the right pane in more than one context, and in the contexts column in Planning mode there’d be several contexts rather than one. Everything else would be identical, wouldn’t it? If so, what is the problem?

If I’m being naive, please do enlighten me/us. So far, while there’s been a lot of explanation from opponents of multiple contexts of it’s undesirability on GTD principle and assertions that it would screw up the interface, I’ve seen no actual explanation of how the latter would happen.

I think you put the finger on the issue. I don't think it makes sense for me to look at one identical task in 4 different places when I am in the context view. Other programs I use do not have this issue since their view is not context-based. Furthermore, the numbering system we have would be changed since it would show up in 4 different places even though it's only one task at hand.

I think there might be other UI issues given the results.

Of course, if you don't mind seeing a bunch of identical tasks laying around on your screen, then it's not a problem, but for me that is neither elegant nor simple when it comes to UI.

Why add more confusion to your plate, when you already have too many things to do anyway?

I hate to say this, but I don't think this issue will ever get resolved in this forum, and my OF tells me I need to be focusing on something else.

Thanks.

Journey

2007-11-28, 10:55 AM

I think you put the finger on the issue. I don't think it makes sense for me to look at one identical task in 4 different places when I am in the context view. Other programs I use do not have this issue since their view is not context-based. Furthermore, the numbering system we have would be changed since it would show up in 4 different places even though it's only one task at hand.

Actually, that is the point! When looking at actions in context view, it's not to see tasks only in one place, it's to see tasks in the right context(s).

An activity that naturally falls into more than one context _should_ show up multiple times in context view!

The activity still only exists in one place. Checking it off in any given context would check it off in all of them. Deleting the item in any given context would delete it in all of them.

If I am at my phone, I want all actions requiring the phone to be in that context. If I am with my friend Sheryl, I want all items relating to her to be in that context (including things I had intended to phone her about). I also would like to see activities that I had planned on doing with her (go to new restaurant) that would also show up in "fun things to do".

Some people might not like multiple contexts because their life or set of activities isn't that complicated, or for some other reason. A preference could be set for that.

I have been using multiple contexts in other tools for a long time now and it's very freeing to just assign them naturally when entering an activity and to know it will show up.

Think in terms of real life -- do your activities really fit into one context? I think even the simplistic ideas so far show that they don't. In fact, it would be very _unusual_ for real-world activities to only show up in one context.

mcoad

2007-11-28, 11:02 AM

I think you put the finger on the issue. I don't think it makes sense for me to look at one identical task in 4 different places when I am in the context view... Of course, if you don't mind seeing a bunch of identical tasks laying around on your screen, then it's not a problem, but for me that is neither elegant nor simple when it comes to UI.

Fair enough, but you wouldn’t have to if you didn’t want to use the feature, as been said so many times on the forum. As has also been said several times, no, I/we don’t find it inelegant. Just the reverse, it’s what would serve us best. And anyway, this would only happen if you had large numbers of your contexts open at one time, which is pretty inelegant anyway.

Is that really all on the UI front? Seems very little, really.

I hate to say this, but I don't think this issue will ever get resolved in this forum

Evidently true. Omni will resolve it. But it’s been a darn good run through points of view on either side, which will presumably help them. Don’t want to be pious about it, but that is what forums are for...

Journey

2007-11-28, 11:07 AM

I’m no programmer so may be missing something crucial here, but I don’t understand why adding multiple contexts would substantially change the UI, much less risk bloat or require a new UI altogether. All that would happen is that in Context mode tasks would show up in the right pane in more than one context, and in the contexts column in Planning mode there’d be several contexts rather than one. Everything else would be identical, wouldn’t it? If so, what is the problem?

I agree in that I don't think it would substantially change the UI, with the same thoughts as you post above.

Something else useful would be a preference in order to set whether a person wants to use single or multiple contexts, which would be adviseable to have set to use single as a default. Multiple contexts can be a concept that one would grow into if one finds a need for them.

In software terms though, even what seems like a simple change can require a lot of unexpected changes, such as how things refresh, etc. -- the subtleties talked about in some other threads. The question is, if multiple contexts are useful (Omni folks would ultimately have to honestly decide this), if it's best to do the effort now or to do it later.

Omni Focus has many other great features such as sequential or parallel tasks, that lead me to want to use this program rather than one of the other tools I have used in the past. It's just frustrating to not have a way to use multiple contexts by intrinsic program design or even in any other way such as a user-defined field that could be searched for values (and then I'd separate them with commas).

Microsoft Access, a database program that's part of some of Microsoft Office bundles, even recognizes the usefulness of a multi-valued column. In relational terms it's actually a many-to-many simplified in the UI. Another option I have considered is to make my own implementation using MS Access, but hey -- I have a Mac now because I like Macs and would like to leave Microsoft in the dust! :-)

Anyway, I have made my case and my hope is that the Omni folks are sitting around a table right now having a useful discussion of multiple contexts, or lack thereof.

mcoad

2007-11-28, 11:28 AM

Anyway, I have made my case and my hope is that the Omni folks are sitting around a table right now having a useful discussion of multiple contexts, or lack thereof.

Amen to that!

eronel

2007-11-28, 11:45 AM

If you're interested in tags/multiple contexts, I encourage reading through the second longest thread in this forum's history. Many of the same points we've been talking about here were hashed out there. There's also some unique discussion and Omni opinions on the matter, including thinking on difficulties with tags and a post offering a different solution down the line.

mcoad

2007-11-28, 12:06 PM

Thanks very much for this, Lenore. I’d seen some other threads on the matter, but not this, which turns out to be the most in important in some respects. Comes of being a newbie, with only a few weeks using the app, coming to a very active forum. It’s good to know that the Omni folks don’t rule out multiple contexts some time in the future. And it’s good, I think, to have reopened the matter, as it shows it is one of the most alive now that growing numbers of people are using OF. It would be good to have some new thoughts from Omni, though, just to see how things are going there.

But for now, like some others, I think I’ve said my piece...

iNik

2007-11-28, 02:41 PM

Something to consider if you're a multiple-contexter:

One aspect of the discipline of GTD is that it forces you to clearly define your next action. The action "buy a shirt next time I'm somewhere that has shirts" is NOT an action. Your next action needs to be, well, an action, such as "Look at shirts at Macys.com" or "Go to Macy's and buy a shirt".

Agenda-wise, the same thing applies. If you need to talk to Susan about something, you should plan your next action in this regard. Your action, clearly defined, is either "Call Susan" or "Email Susan" or "Talk to Susan" or even put the whole Susan conversation on hold with no action associated with it and hope that she drops by or calls you, at which point you may or may not catch up on outstanding issues.

Also consider how this would impact communications. If I call Susan and cover everything from her thoughts on the latest Spike Lee movie to the Lawry contract to her problems with her instant messaging program, she's going to be totally lost, and is unlikely to act on any of those things. I'll be much more effective if I, say, email her about the movie, call her cell for an update on the contract, and then drop by her office to help her with her IM.

But for my direct report, I do keep a context just for him, because I do have a regular 1:1 meeting which is specifically designed as a broad update, and keeps us from chatting too much and wasting time during the week. Same goes for my wife, since we only have a few hours in the evening to talk before we have to put the kid to bed.

mcoad

2007-11-29, 06:54 AM

OK, I blew it. Resolve fell apart at the first nudge and I’m back. Obviously not a disciplined person. Must need OF...

The action "buy a shirt next time I'm somewhere that has shirts" is NOT an action.

Why not? Or, rather, why is “buy a shirt” not an action? Because I’m not defining the context immediately? Talk about circular logic. There are many tasks like this that need to be done, but when you put them on your list you may not be in a position to assign an exact context. Or there may be several contexts where you can carry out the task. I don’t want to be obliged to work out the minutiae every time I note down a task, and maybe have to do jump through hoops in order to make it fit. I just want to get to it down and move on. Maybe I can put it in the In Box until later. Or maybe I know there are a couple of contexts coming up where I can do it, so I want to be able to toss it in both so I won’t forget when I’m in either. There are plenty of examples of such situations in this thread and elsewhere. It’s very common.

If this is undisciplined according to the rigid interpretation of GTD doctrine, then so be it. But it’s the way most of us operate. We don’t spend our time fretting over the great metasemiotic scheme of our lives and the place of every tiny action in it. We get on with stuff in an orderly and efficient way, and want a tool which best helps us do this. Excessive demand for definition at every instant is the enemy of efficiency, not its helper. It prevents you seeing the wood for the trees, bogs you down, wastes time, is alienating. Flexibility and structure together - a supple discipline is what we need, not boxes. And this suppleness is just what OF provides - with this one major exception.

joelande

2007-11-29, 07:19 AM

Perhaps "Omni"Focus should be called "OnlyMyWay"Focus

mcoad

2007-11-29, 11:06 AM

Just to make this crystal clear, and at the risk of boring the socks of everyone with yet another example, here’s a real life situation that has just come up. I need to ask a friend, Seb, for some contact details. These are for someone I need to get in touch with for work reasons. Seb, however, has nothing to do with my work. He’s my best friend and we play jazz together, and will probably rehearse tomorrow. So, given that OF in its wisdom only allows me one context, do I put the task in Seb or in Work? If I do the first, it puts the logic out of joint and cuts the step off from the rest of my workflow, but if I put it in Work I risk forgetting to bring it up with Seb when looking over what I need to talk to him about next.

Obviously in real life this is pretty trivial and I’m not yet so addled I can’t just lift the phone right now and ask Seb. I’ll do it right after I finish posting. Even if I can’t reach him until we rehearse our chops in a couple of days, I’ll probably remember, and anyway to make sure I can stick a note on my fake book. But, hey, notice how OF has slipped right out of the picture, when it’s supposed to keep this kind of thing organized for me. If I was a whole lot busier than I am right now, or of this kind of situation was multiplied several times over...

You get the point. It makes no sense at all that I can’t put the task in both contexts, Work and Seb, and just forget about it til the best time to deal with it. Why the heck should I have to leap though hoops trying to twist the system into shape to work, or inventing a new Seb subcontext to nest under Work and then having to remember to look at this one as well as Seb-on-his-own, or something equally outlandish.

Right, that’s it. I’m off for a pint. After I call Seb...

LizPf

2007-11-29, 12:13 PM

One thing I have not been able to fit in the current context system is the level of efforts a task require (which is one of the canonical questions in the "doing" part of The Book). Let's say I'm dead tired but I have one hour and I can do mindless things: do I need to go through every task that I have and evaluate if I have the effort to do it?

One solution could be to duplicate every context with the level of effort, but it seems too much. I can see where tagging would help here.

I think I wrote something similar in another thread ... great minds, brab?

I'm pretty much in the One Context camp, though I can see the use of a second-level tag of some sort for a very few things:

- the mental effort needed, or whether a call is free/charge (I need to call Steve, but only during my free minutes -- he's long distance and talks too much)

- If we use OF as a shopping list, when we can buy an item in several places (one bag pancake mix Errands>Northwest>Whole Foods, OR Errands>South>Hannaford)

I can also see how including a multiple Context ability can really gum up the system for anyone who doesn't use them very sparingly.

I don't have a solution for this, and I'm glad it's not my problem to solve :-)

--Liz

curt.clifton

2007-11-29, 02:21 PM

ksrhee

2007-11-29, 02:31 PM

Are you using the estimated time column? It is really about time required, but if you aren't using it for time you could use it for estimated amount of brainpower required. Hmm, this task may take 45 minutes, but it only requires 1 minute of thinking.

In my case, I would use the estimated time for time required, but use flags to indicate efforts. Flag = high/important effort; No flag = med/low effort.

It's not as elegant as having its own system, but it allows you to at least eliminate one group of tasks.

curt.clifton

2007-11-29, 02:36 PM

Fair enough, but you wouldn’t have to if you didn’t want to use the feature, as been said so many times on the forum. As has also been said several times, no, I/we don’t find it inelegant. Just the reverse, it’s what would serve us best. And anyway, this would only happen if you had large numbers of your contexts open at one time, which is pretty inelegant anyway.

How on earth are you using OF if you aren't in multiple contexts at once? (That's a rhetorical question).

I think that this is the problem that most everybody here is talking past. Some folks are arguing that an action must be in all the possible contexts where one could do it, so that upon selecting a single context the action will show up. Others are saying that an action belongs in the one context where it is actionable, and if you don't have such a context then you need to refine your contexts. This viewpoint then relies on OF's ability to show multiple contexts at once.

I find great value in GTD forcing me to have the discipline to think things through during processing and planning time. That's what gives me the mind-like-water feeling. Nothing slips through the cracks once I've established the habits. In Merlin Mann's interviews with David Allen, Allen talks a lot about the multiplicative effects of developing discipline in all the stages of GTD (capturing, processing, reviewing, doing, ...). He also talks about the benefits from evening getting better at just a couple of these. I suspect that the first idea resonates most with the single-context purists, while the second does so with the multiple-context advocates. At least I find that an intriguing way to think about the question.

curt.clifton

2007-11-29, 02:43 PM

Journey

2007-11-29, 02:59 PM

I think that this is the problem that most everybody here is talking past. Some folks are arguing that an action must be in all the possible contexts where one could do it, so that upon selecting a single context the action will show up. Others are saying that an action belongs in the one context where it is actionable, and if you don't have such a context then you need to refine your contexts. This viewpoint then relies on OF's ability to show multiple contexts at once.

With multiple contexts my intent wouldn't be for an action to be in all of the possible contexts where one could do an activity. I would still use discipline in my choice of contexts.

"Get gas at Mobile station on the way to work" would probably fall into the general category of "Errand" even though I might have a place in mind to get the gas at.

Multiple contexts are useful to me if my contexts have been well thought out. Well thought out and disciplined though, to me, doesn't mean that every activity will always fit into one context.

mcoad

2007-11-29, 04:54 PM

I can also see how including a multiple Context ability can really gum up the system for anyone who doesn't use them very sparingly.

I just love this logic. Liz, how many fonts do you have activated in your favourite word processing app: twenty, thirty, fifty? Well, I reckon that’s far too many and we should restrict you to, say, three. That should be enough for any reasonable user. I mean, we can’t have you throwing just any old font all over your newsletter or thesis doc, can we? Nobody will understand you, you won’t understand yourself, you’ll really gum up the system. And anyway you normally only use a couple, don’t you, nice and sparing, so what’s the odds? So, for your own good, let’s take the shears to your font archive...

How about that other app, OmniGraffle? All those squares and circles and arrows and weird shapes. It‘s totally out of control, a person could put them anywhere, all over the screen, total mess, gum up everything. No way. For their own good, limit these people to five triangles, a couple of octagons and maybe half a dozen rectangles. That should be sparing enough for any reasonable user.

People aren’t stupid. Or not that stupid. They can be trusted to use such features “sparingly“, really. And if they don’t, then in this app they’ll be the first to know and have to pare down, just as they did long ago when they learnt not to be promiscuous with their fonts. No-one else will be affected. No-one will have to goggle at their doc with twenty fonts and ninety hexagons. They’ll just end up with their contexts in a twist and will soon learn. And meanwhile, the rest of us, the sensible ones, will find that OF really, truly rocks.

mcoad

2007-11-29, 06:00 PM

Wait a sec. Why would that task belong in a Work context? Contexts are entirely about the constraints on where you can do something. They have nothing to do with the project or area of responsibility related to the action. That's what Projects and Folders are for.

I was buying your argument. But now I wonder if there isn't really some confusion about what contexts are. Would you be willing to share your context list?

I’m still refining my contexts list, working out how they best suit me in practice, so the terminology may be misleading. I understand what you’re saying, but I’m a writer and Work at the moment basically means what I do at my desk, in my office workspace, as opposed to Library, Archive, Location, etc. Later, when a project requires it - and it’s unusual that none do right now - I’ll add those and refine further. My working life isn’t that complex, mostly on my own, a few projects on the go more or less simultaneously: a book ready for the publishers, a novel I’m planning, a TV series idea I’m researching, a play production I’m advising on, article ideas. What I need right now when I boot up my computer is to see presented in a single list what next needs doing while I’m at my desk for all the projects among these that I’m working on right now. That’s why, for the moment, they are assigned to a context I’ve called Work (distinct from the folder they’re all in, which is called Writing) so that they can appear together. This may not be usual for other users, and you may find it too heterogeneous, but for this particular moment in my daily workflow it’s what I need and the Context mode is what allows me to do it. When this is done and I need to focus on one project, I go to Planning mode and do it there.

Whether this is absolutely orthodox GTD and whether I have my notion of contexts refined exactly as orthodoxy demands, really doesn’t worry me. I find GTD helpful in imposing discipline, aiding ordering, etc, but I’m concerned - like most users, I suspect - to use it and OF as best it serves me, weeding out my own foibles if they are negative but not otherwise. Up to now OF is doing this superbly well, with the one exception of this frustrating business of single contexts (oh, and the lack of a time-line visualization view, as discussed in other threads, but that’s a lost cause, I fear). And I can see the rigid single context becoming an even greater problem when I have to add other working contexts. All this quite apart from the fact that I simply don’t see any real argument in favour of it; this is just an opinion, I know, but it is infuriating when a feature that could help many is opposed by users for whom its inclusion wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference if they chose not to use it.

But however I define my contexts - if, in this simplistic case, for example, I want to put my query to Seb in a more orthodox Phone context rather than Work - the same problem will arise. I appreciate your offer of help, but I don’t think it’s a matter of how I’m thinking of contexts.

Journey

2007-11-29, 06:54 PM

And I can see the rigid single context becoming an even greater problem when I have to add other working contexts. All this quite apart from the fact that I simply don’t see any real argument in favour of it; this is just an opinion, I know, but it is infuriating when a feature that could help many is opposed by users for whom its inclusion wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference if they chose not to use it.

But however I define my contexts - if, in this simplistic case, for example, I want to put my query to Seb in a more orthodox Phone context rather than Work - the same problem will arise. I appreciate your offer of help, but I don’t think it’s a matter of how I’m thinking of contexts.

Exactly -- for those who don't want or feel that they need multiple contexts, they can use one / action.

I enjoyed your post about fonts and shapes -- you are a skilled writer and very good at getting your point across.

OOO

2007-11-29, 08:43 PM

Liz, how many fonts do you have activated in your favourite word processing app: twenty, thirty, fifty?

That reminds me, Apple really needs to remove that pointless "single font restriction". I just want to set my resume in both Times and Comic Sans simultaneously, because it looks good in both!

(sorry couldn't resist)

Journey

2007-11-29, 09:37 PM

That reminds me, Apple really needs to remove that pointless "single font restriction". I just want to set my resume in both Times and Comic Sans simultaneously, because it looks good in both!

(sorry couldn't resist)

No no no ... the way things work using the SFI (single font / idea) methodology is that every idea can have its own font. Having perhaps a dozen fonts is perfectly OK as you don't try to apply more than one font to that idea (and why in the world would you need to do that anyway).

In addition, when you choose your font you must also stick to one font style for that idea. You can have plain or bold or italics but do not combine them.

This assumes that you have a hierarchy like the following to assign an idea to:

Arial
.... Arial Plain
.... Arial Bold
.... Arial Italic

Courier
.... Courier Plain
.... Courier Bold
.... Courier Italic

Gothic
.... Gothic Plain
.... Gothic Bold
.... Gothic Italic

Palatino
.... Palatino Plain
.... Palatino Bold
.... Palatino Italic

Times
.... Times Plain
.... Times Bold
.... Times Italic

You can only choose one line from all of the above.

Why would someone want to have something like:

Font
.... Arial
.... Courier
.... Gothic
.... Palatino
.... Times

Style:
.... Plain
.... Bold
.... Italic

And assign both a font and a style, or heaven forbid more than one font and more than one style to an idea. Nonsense.

To summarize: simply just don't apply two fonts to the same idea, and once you pick a font you may pick a style but only one style. No mixing plain with bold or italics.

If you were allowed to choose more than one font and style for an idea you will only confuse yourself, and if you are really disciplined one font / idea is the best way for you to do things anyway. All ideas are best expressed in that way.

(and DON'T even get me started on font size and font color !!!)

brab

2007-11-30, 12:42 AM

mcoad

2007-11-30, 04:54 AM

That reminds me, Apple really needs to remove that pointless "single font restriction". I just want to set my resume in both Times and Comic Sans simultaneously, because it looks good in both!

(sorry couldn't resist)

Yo! Appreciate the joke, but to be dour about it, the analogy is false. If you want to set different parts of your resume in two fonts, there’s nothing stopping you (except your hopes of getting the job). But if you mean you want to set every letter of the same chunk of text simultaneously in two fonts, the physical laws of the universe - bear with me folks -, and not Apple, won’t be having it. Or, rather, if you did manage it, you’d have invented a new hybrid font which wouldn’t be either of the two originals.

The Great Context Issue is totally different. Here, in this corner of the multiverse, it is actually impossible to choose a single and multiple contexts, or anything else, simultaneously, in an OF field or anywhere else. At least it is where I’m sitting. A quantum physicist might take issue, but then quantum task management is a whole different jar of worms, I should imagine - and if all this is keeping the Omnifolks up at night... So what you say has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is about having the option to choose - and because you need it, not because it looks good.

Wow, enjoyed that... thanks OOO.

Exactly -- for those who don't want or feel that they need multiple contexts, they can use one / action.

I enjoyed your post about fonts and shapes -- you are a skilled writer and very good at getting your point across.

Thanks for the kind words, Journey. These forums do get kind of addictive, don’t they. But all to a good purpose...

curt.clifton

2007-11-30, 09:04 AM

mcoad, thanks for clarifying your use of contexts. I wasn't trying to preach orthodoxy, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some confusion.

I'm enjoying the font analogy as well. I'm laughing to myself, because I actually think it would be a good idea if my word processing application presented a small well-chosen set of fonts that worked nicely together and hid the others. That would prevent me from fiddling with the fonts. Give me nice Optima headings and some Palatino goodness for the body text. I could use different templates to get other sets of well matched fonts. (This is mostly tongue in cheek, but I think the gist of my reaction probably reflects on why I'm fine with single contexts per action.)

I've enjoyed this thread. You've convinced me that multiple contexts per action would be a helpful feature. I doubt I would use it much personally, but there seem to be some use cases where it is the right approach.

joelande

2007-11-30, 09:44 AM

Last night I dug out my copy of GTD and started reading it again.

I immediately thought of this thread when I read:

Page xii:
"And after twenty-plus years of developing and applying new methods for personal and organizational productivity, alongside years of rigorous exploration in the self-development arena, I can attest that there is no single, once-and-for-all solution."

mcoad

2007-11-30, 09:57 AM

mcoad, thanks for clarifying your use of contexts. I wasn't trying to preach orthodoxy, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some confusion..

Thanks, Curt. I didn’t take it as preaching. I was glad of the comments, as they made me think my use of the context through again, and I can see that from the name it would look a bit off-kilter. I’ve certainly learnt a lot from the forum, which I confess I was new to, even if the debate does gets a bit pointed now and again.

It has been a good thread, and by now pretty much everything has been said, I guess. Here’s hoping it’s been useful for the Omnians, too. Some good cases have been made, I reckon, plenty of food for thought.

And - to go off topic a second - I agree with you about the font grouping - a really good idea, not at all tongue-in-cheek. To non-design ninjas, some gentle guidance like this would be really useful, I’ve often thought while battling with the font lists.

"And after twenty-plus years of developing and applying new methods for personal and organizational productivity, alongside years of rigorous exploration in the self-development arena, I can attest that there is no single, once-and-for-all solution."

Right on!

Cheers

Malcolm

OOO

2007-11-30, 10:22 AM

Although I'm a devout "single contexter" (as well as a hardcore "software minimalist"), I do agree that there is nothing in GTD defines a context one way or another. In fact, I believe DA says that you can use NO contexts (i.e. a plain to-do list) if you don't have a lot of actions. And in the "GTD templates" that he sells (a set of cards that summarizes GTD), context is basically mentioned in half a sentence, along with the other criteria for determining what to do next. I suspect if you asked DA about multiple contexts he'd say something like "whatever works for you, just don't let your project management become another project itself". (I guess I'd fail this one because I DO have a bucket in OmniFocus called "OmniFocus feedback").

GTD is basically a set of principles, or an attitude, more than particular behaviors. BUT, we can't support all the different interpretations in one single program.

As for my earlier font reply, I'm no designer, but does anybody remember Multiple master fonts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_master_fonts)? Those DID let you combine multiple fonts on a single character, via interpolation. But it quietly died because 1) most designers didn't understand or see the need and 2) the UI was never really figured out.

mcoad

2007-11-30, 10:34 AM

Thanks, OOO!! Good sense, good vibes... Could it be that we’re actually reaching a consensus here!

Cheers

Malcolm

PS I agree about not being able to include all possible interpretations in a single app, but that’s not what we’re talking about, after all. Merely one feature, of no significance for those who don’t want to use it, and which, as you point it, isn’t a matter of unbreakable doctrine anyway.

Journey

2007-11-30, 11:07 AM

Thanks, OOO!! Good sense, good vibes... Could it be that we’re actually reaching a consensus here!

Yes, definitely good vibes. The discussion has been very good.

Since we all have good feelings now, let's do a group {{{ hugz }}} and sing Kumbaya :-)

(a little silliness doesn't hurt now and then)

All together now,

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya .......

mcoad

2007-11-30, 11:13 AM

Kumbayaaaaaaaa, my lord.......

Oh yeah...

curt.clifton

2007-11-30, 01:50 PM

kumbaya.

(respectful silence to satisfy the minimum post length rule)

ksrhee

2007-11-30, 02:28 PM

Although I'm a devout "single contexter" (as well as a hardcore "software minimalist"), I do agree that there is nothing in GTD defines a context one way or another. In fact, I believe DA says that you can use NO contexts (i.e. a plain to-do list) if you don't have a lot of actions. And in the "GTD templates" that he sells (a set of cards that summarizes GTD), context is basically mentioned in half a sentence, along with the other criteria for determining what to do next. I suspect if you asked DA about multiple contexts he'd say something like "whatever works for you, just don't let your project management become another project itself". (I guess I'd fail this one because I DO have a bucket in OmniFocus called "OmniFocus feedback").

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

Journey

2007-12-01, 12:02 AM

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

The Getting Things Done methodology by DA as described in the book doesn't say how he would file things if it's done on the computer. DA has some kind of forum on his website for a monthly fee. I may sign up for it for a few months. It would be interesting to get his perspective on this.

Even so, the originator of a methodology has an opinion, and a user of the methodology could have an opinion that is just as valid.

I looked at the Palm PDA program Bonsai tonight and interestingly, it has a keyword column that can have multiple values. It's perfect for contexts. It even allows contexts to be in categories, so all my People contexts could go in a category, all my Place contexts could go in a category, etc.

mcoad

2007-12-01, 07:55 AM

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

But this just begs the question. Obviously it’s right as far as it goes, but what about those many cases when there simply isn’t a single particular context, but others that serve just as well and there’s no way of defining which is best and no way of knowing which you will be in first. What do you do - toss a coin? Spent valuable time wracking your brains to twist your system so you can force the task into one? Repeat the task in all the contexts and then have to remember to go back and mark them all as done? Risk forgetting the task because it’s locked into another context than the one you’re in? This isn’t the way to get things done. The answer is obvious: put it in the two or three appropriate contexts, and when you tick it off it is marked as done in all. What is the problem with this? It’s the way several of the most used GTD apps work, and it’s significant that DA never states otherwise, whatever implications you may see in this passage.

jasong

2007-12-01, 10:33 AM

Journey

2007-12-01, 11:40 AM

I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be. Part of that is that GTD is supposed to get you to "think" a certain way about how you approach your tasks, and one way it gets you to do that is to make you think about which context you need to accomplish a very physical action.

For a paper system one context / action makes sense. On paper, you would have to duplicate the action in order to put it into multiple contexts.

This problem does not exist on the computer. Putting something into multiple contexts isn't a case of having to duplicate the activity. It's simply selecting all the contexts into which the activity needs to fall.

As far as GTD "getting you to think a certain way about how you approach your tasks", yes -- the "thinking" involved is to identify the context(s). On paper, one context. On the computer, it could be multiple contexts. If I have an activity that falls naturally into more than one context (plenty of examples already provided), then I think in the GTD way and assign them that way making use of the computer to be able to have one activity and all its contexts.

Also, as far as "getting you to think", a big part of GTD is to unload something and also to think about it less. With multiple contexts, processing of activities is much easier because I don't have to think about (or remember) how I artificially need to impose my activities into a one-context scheme.

Most other task and outline programs allow some way to assign multiple values, whether they call it tags, keywords, or multi-valued column. In the case of this program, context would be one area where people may want that capability. If they don't, then they only need to assign one context.

I think some people think of context mode as just another way to sort and view their project activities. If a person wants single contexts / activity, they can have that. On the other hand, with multiple contexts, a person can go into context mode and be sure that any context they look at contains all of the activities that naturally fall there.

I think user mcoad (sorry if I missed your name) has expressed it best.

I think, if this is to be implemented, that this might be the best time to do it -- alpha stage. Changes later would confuse users, and require much more explanation about how to code things (esp. if the user-interface changes a bit for selecting contexts). A change now would make any user interface changes while this is in alpha, and the alpha-testers would be up to speed on how multiple contexts work, and when it goes to 1.0 there would be many alpha testers who would understand and aid in forums how multiple contexts work.

I think it would be important to have a user preference setting for single or multiple contexts, and default it to single. That reduces confusion for the new user.

If single contexts are implemented, after 1.0 there will be users who would want multiple contexts. So, instead of this "problem" going away, it will persist, and discussion of it will persist.

If multiple contexts are implemented, this will still be discussed, but more in terms not of the limitation of the program (single contexts) but in how the program offers the option of powerful multiple contexts _if_ one wants or needs to use that.

Anway, I have to go shovel snow. It sucks to live in Wisconsin during the winter !!! 23 degrees here -- I'm jealous of all you southerners.

mcoad

2007-12-01, 11:50 AM

I think much of the argument comes down to this approach. Yes, multiple contexts are extremely valuable, but they may lead to a breakdown in now some think about their actions. (Even if it's an option you must turn on, it's a temptation to many.)

I'd love to see how multiple contexts might affect how we process our stuff, and if it makes us more or less productive.

I can tell you right away, in my case. They make me more productive.

But that aside, your post is fascinating, jasong, and I think you’ve put your finger right on the jugular. OF, and GTD too, are tools to help us organize our lives, not some kind of quasi-religious discipline. It’s a fine line, maybe, but what I want is for them to help me get things done, practical things in my daily life, not force me into some kind of monastical rigour in which instead of doing things I have to be wracking my brains over whether there really isn’t some other context that I haven’t thought about, or not processing tasks because I can’t think of a context, or slicing and dicing everything every which way to make it fit some scheme imposed on me by the great god, GTD. That’s crazy. GTD, and other systems like it, are a a huge help and, yes, encourage discipline in planning. But there’s discipline and discipline, and when a simple, and pretty much common-sense, set of self-help precepts start sounding more like a cross between British public school and the Spanish Inquisition, things have gone way too far.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not accusing you of this and what you say is very interesting - and, hallelujah, you’re arguing for multiple contexts (oh, come to my arms...)! But a few of your terms, and many used by others, do sound a bit like it. Sometimes they conjure up a picture of GTD, and of OF, standing over us, wagging a long finger and a whip, saying “More, you louse, break it down more! Resist temptation! You know that context is there!” And all we’re talking about is who to phone when and what would come best before something else. Really, life is too short! Give me a couple of context alternatives to toss it into and, renegade and wimp that I am, I’m done and I can go smell the roses.

Cheers

Malcolm

PS Journey, hi! Come and join us down here, just hitting summer, the smell of jasmine and under the snow of the Andean peaks still there above. Best wishes from Chile. A truly international forum!

Journey

2007-12-01, 01:37 PM

Cheers

Malcolm

PS Journey, hi! Come and join us down here, just hitting summer, the smell of jasmine and under the snow of the Andean peaks still there above. Best wishes from Chile. A truly international forum!

Wow, Chile -- I'd love to join you down there -- I could get there, but where to stay is a limiting factor cost-wise. I've never been on a real vacation (and I'm 44). I have seasonal vacation in the winter time, called Seasonal Affective Disorder due to less light, and ideally I'd like to find a way to go to a different part of the U.S. (or better yet a different part of the world) during winter here.

That's a good reminder -- I should put on my thinking / creativity hat and come up with a solution. Texas, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand ...

I immersed myself in the Japanese language and in Japanese culture (even though I never went there) and became fairly good with conversational Japanese because I was a conversational partner for Japanese students coming to the U.S. I regret now though that I hadn't put that kind of effort into Spanish, which is much more practical. Hablo espanol solamente un poquito.

joelande

2007-12-02, 01:04 PM

For a paper system one context / action makes sense. On paper, you would have to duplicate the action in order to put it into multiple contexts.

This problem does not exist on the computer. Putting something into multiple contexts isn't a case of having to duplicate the activity. It's simply selecting all the contexts into which the activity needs to fall.

As far as GTD "getting you to think a certain way about how you approach your tasks", yes -- the "thinking" involved is to identify the context(s). On paper, one context. On the computer, it could be multiple contexts. ...

Also, as far as "getting you to think", a big part of GTD is to unload something and also to think about it less. With multiple contexts, processing of activities is much easier because I don't have to think about (or remember) how I artificially need to impose my activities into a one-context scheme.
Very well said.

I have been re-reading DA's GTD book.

He certainly is not as hard-core as some of the posters here regarding contexts.

I could not find one place that said every action has to be assigned one and only one context. Or that you had to think about each action in such excruciating detail as to assign it its one and only minimal-physical requirement context.

Most of his examples relate to assigning a context to one context because he is teaching how a person could implement the system with a low-tech, cheap, paper-based system if they wanted to.

On the other hand, he does mention more than once that it is OK to find out what works for you (as long as you stick to the core concepts).

I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be.
Or perhaps they don't understand your GTD?

I wouldn't be so tightly indoctrinated...there is enough of that in the world today.

There seem to be some very smart people here, who clearly understand and have read GTD, and yet still see a benefit to tags (or multiple contexts). (And if you want to stick to doctrine, their interpretation after reading the book says that tags are OK.)

Better to talk about the features of teh software than trying to stake a claim in the ground regarding who's interpetation of GTD is the right and only one.

I really don't see why tags woudl be a problem...

If you don't want to use tags or multiple contexts, don't use 'em.

But don't take them away from the rest of us becasue you read the book better than the rest of us...

jasong

2007-12-02, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by me:
I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be.

Or perhaps they don't understand your GTD?

I wouldn't be so tightly indoctrinated...there is enough of that in the world today.

Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't talking about "my" GTD. Some people understand GTD to be single-contexts. I didn't state my opinion. I'm not "indoctrinated" into anything (except perhaps the Cult of Macintosh).

... And if you want to stick to doctrine.... stake a claim in the ground regarding who's interpetation of GTD is the right and only one.... don't take them away from the rest of us becasue you read the book better than the rest of us...

No need to get personal. I didn't say anything about sticking to doctrine, staking a claim or preventing multiple contexts. In fact, I quite clearly said I see the value for some:

I certainly see the value of multiple contexts and there've been times when I wanted to stick an action into multiple contexts because I couldn't decide which one was best (or because a couple appeared equally useful).

But not for me (based on how I use GTD).

devn

2008-01-14, 01:28 PM

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I'd drop it here, too.

Note that some of the steps below are extraneous or unnecessary, and I have marked them with a "^^", but for the purposes of demonstration I left my thought process in.

Create Multiple Contexts:
- create a folder "My New OmniFocus Feature" ^^
- create 2 sub-folders "@1", and "@2".
- create a project "Drink Milk" under "@1".
- give this project a task "Milk Cow".
- give this project a context "Barn".
- hold down option and drag "Drink Milk" to "@2", to copy the project and its task into our other sub-folder.

Now, I want to be be reminded of this when I'm at my barn, -or- in my field. Switch over to the context mode:

- make a new context "Multi-Context" ^^
- drag "Barn" and "Field" into "Multi-Context"
- go up to view, sort by context
- click "Multi-Context" to view all of your muti-context actions under it
- voila.

-OR-
You could do something like this if you have a common couple of contexts... Note that this will only work with two contexts, but check it out:

- go into preferences and under "Project and Context Names", make sure "Show full hierarchy, using separator" is checked
- now, create a project "Drink Milk"
-- give it a task "Milk Cow"
- switch over to context view
- create a context "Barn"
-- create a sub-contexts "Field" (where else can you milk a cow?)
- switch back to your planning view and give your "Milk Cow" task the context "Barn : Field"
- voila.

-OR-
I want to remember to milk my cow when I'm at my house, in the field, or in the barn.

- create a project "Drink Milk"
- give it a task "Milk Cow"
- give the task the context: "Barn, Field, House"

I want to remember to slaughter my pig only when I'm in the barn, or the field.

- create a project "Eat Pork"
-- give it a task "Slaughter Pig"
-- give it a context "Barn, Field"
-- give the project another task "Cook Pork"
-- give it a context "House"

- now search "Barn"
- search "Field"
- search "House"
- voila.

If you want to be clean about it, go over to context and drop your multi-contexts into an overarching context to manage them more efficiently.

Are these perfect solutions? No.

I will say this: I don't think multiple contexts are a good idea. It blurs lines between where work is supposed to occur, where you expect work to occur. In a word, it's "dirty".

If you want multiple contexts, then I think you should just be putting those tasks into an "Ambiguous" context, but that's just me...

Cheers,
Devin

patp

2008-01-14, 02:21 PM

I'm a little confused.. is the hesitation based on how to make it work or whether it is part of GTD?

As far as how to make it work, it sounds pretty straightforward:

You just have to make the context choice a list box instead of a drop-down box. This way, you could select multiple contexts while only having one action entry exist on the project side of things.

If it's a problem of deciding whether this stays true to GTD, then I'm not sure what to think on that side of things. I imagine a purist could stick to just the one context for each action but as some have pointed out, some actions do apply in multiple contexts. It's just a matter of making sure that if it is checked off in one context, it applies to all (this shouldn't be a problem if everything is being pulled from a database which I believe it is).

curt.clifton

2008-01-14, 06:30 PM

patp,

Selecting multiple contexts is easy. Displaying an action in Context view that belongs to multiple contexts is a bit harder. For example, should it show up multiple times when grouping by context? That's covered in detail in the thread.

I think the argument against multiple contexts is essentially that they are an attractive nuisance. They invite you to fiddle with your system rather than doing work. (Please note that I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but I see where it's coming from.)

mcoad

2008-01-15, 04:44 AM

patp,

I think the argument against multiple contexts is essentially that they are an attractive nuisance. They invite you to fiddle with your system rather than doing work. (Please note that I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but I see where it's coming from.)

That does appear to be the reason. But it’s pure dogma and for many people plain wrong. One person’s attractive nuisance is another’s essential tool. For me wasting time wracking my brains trying to force a task into a single context when it clearly could be carried out equally well in more than one is the very definition of “fiddling with your system rather than doing work.” As joelande eloquently points put, the guru himself, David Allen, doesn’t insist on single contexts. If someone wants to adopt this rigid method, well and good. But why should the rest of us be forced into it? Say again - pure dogma.

curt.clifton

2008-01-16, 07:06 PM

This is a thoroughly dead horse. Continued floggings of such equine are why I'm on the verge of just abandoning the forums altogether.

mcoad

2008-01-17, 04:31 AM

I sympathize - though I was just replying to yours. Everything that could be said has been, I agree, ad infinitum. Speaking for the flexible school, here’s just hoping we’ve been heard up in the decision zone...

Best

Malcolm

douglas

2008-01-17, 10:01 PM

I'm new to omniFocus (but not omniApps) and to GTD (which to be honest kind of sounded like a self-help/pyramid scheme before looking into it — actually looks quite useful). I've also always used the low-tech pen and paper approach myself but been looking for an enlightened approach.

I was a bit confused at first with the whole context thing in trying to decide how best to use it. I definitely can see both sides of the argument (single vs. multiple contexts). But in trying to find a good working solution given the way the program is currently designed (e.g. 1 context) I decided to think about contexts more as the 'mode that I will likely be in when doing said activity' rather than the 'device' or 'location' or 'person' that I will be using/at/with/etc.

Here is a good example. I created a context called "office:bookkeeping". One could argue (and I'm sure you will) that bookkeeping should be a project (and it is also btw), but I would prefer to keep some bookkeeping activities related directly to the client/project (e.g. 'send invoice'). So now when I'm in 'office/work/bookkeeping' mode I've got all my action items available. This works much better that trying to decide the device or location or "essential item" to get the task done which is really (or mostly) irrelevant. There is some overlap such as the context "phone" – but I think of it more like 'calling/feel like talking/happen to have a phone (or skype)' mode rather than bound to the device itself. Thinking this way got around the feeling that I needed more than one context.

I'm not even going to get into the people contexts... seems like a crazy approach given all the people that I deal with. Good candidate for 'search'. To be honest I'm looking for a solution that will make sense using one context if possible. I don't want to start messing around with multiple context/hyperlinked/cross referenced everything. And I'd rather get things done than fiddle with tagging.

I'm going to give it a shot with the whole one context approach and see if it works. I'm curious if shifting the meaning/way of thinking of 'context' to 'mode' makes a difference for anyone. Or if anyone has any other strategies to make the 1 context work well. I'm all for simplicity. Probably very unGTD of me but I could care less.

I guess I'm in the one context camp for the time being.

btw - before I get attacked - I don't really care if its an option. I'm just saying that I'm glad that I haven't had the option up to this point. I think that I would have made more of a mess of the problem given the opportunity. And as a result I would be spending a lot more time with this than I should be. On the other side I also don't have any problem with a software designer taking a stand and deciding to limit options for the sake of simplicity.

kidbizslick

2008-01-17, 11:05 PM

Hey All, I only read the first few posts in this thread, and then to see what was eventually the present M.O., and skipped down to the end to read the last few posts. Just thought I'd share a quick tid-bit.
As it appears someone must have already written (based on the fact that I finally did see someone mentioning the GTD system's emphasis on contexts), that's exactly what I wanted to share upon first checking out this particular thread... GTD has helped me, particularly because of contexts. My anxiety comes from never feeling like my time is mine, so I ultimately feel guilty for having some spare time. So, kind of like with money, I used to always give it all away before putting any aside for myself. I do the same w/ my time. NOW, I can actually assign a context (ONE context) to an item. Then, I know I can stop worrying about what *can't* be done--NOW, thus, freeing me up to either do another item in my list, or, just friggin' relax... finally.
To be clear, I certainly would not want to alienate anybody, because a mantra of mine is, "Live and let live". Thus, if anyone else's system includes multiple tagging and / or contexts, then that's okay, but because OF seems to want to utilize and / or target the GTD demographic, this seems logical to me that that's why they have NOT provided for multiple contexts. Because THAT'S the whole point of GTD, "stress-free" productivity. For me, while a more database oriented app which uses / provides for cross referencing... that's specifically what I personally, am trying to avoid. I do have apps which do this, and again, just for me personally, that ADDs to my anxiety, not detracts from it. GTD, as implemented within David Allen's book, helps me to do just that... not feel guilty because I finally have some time to myself to do whatever the hell it is I'd like to at that moment. Multiple contexts would defeat (again, FOR ME) the whole purpose. This does NOT mean I think that the folks who want that feature are wrong or bad or mutants of some kind, it just doesn't work for me, for these particular purposes. Finally, if they DO implement this feature / option within OF, I hope it's one that I can NOT have to even see while IN contexts. Sorry if this sounded like a rant.

mcoad

2008-01-18, 05:23 AM

Douglas and kidbizslick both make good points. They have methods which work for them and that’s great. Most of the time one context is fine. I’ll grant, too, that trying to fix on a single context can be clarifying in the GTD sense. But it’s horses for courses in the end. In my experience and that of many others, it’s just blindingly obvious that sometimes there is more than one context and that accepting this increases efficiency rather than confusing matters. It ensures the task actually gets done rather than being overlooked at the most opportune time. In such cases it’s having to force a thing into a single context that wastes time and screws up GTD - for many of us a real weakness of OF. So, the obvious answer: make both possible, and those that prefer to work always with one can just ignore the alternative.

mcoad

2008-01-18, 05:42 AM

Just a quick addition. The point we in the flexible party are making is not that you should sit down with every task and work out all the possible contexts in which it could be achieved. Obviously that way madness lies and anyone looking to organize their time better with a tool like OF should be advised strongly against any such temptation. It’s just that some tasks, sometimes many, sometimes just a few, will be doable in more than one context, and it may sometimes be truly impossible to choose one over another. In the interests of getting them done opportunely such a tool needs to take this into account.

yucca

2008-01-18, 09:35 AM

First, I am in the context tagging camp. However, we have to use the tool we have (a damn fine one I might add!); and will summarize a workaround that was either mentioned earlier or in another thread for anyone who has skippped through most of the posts in this thread.

While not perfect, a context hierarchy can help with many (most?) of the situations where you really want context tagging. I'll bet most of us have work and home contexts. You can cheat your way to a bit of tagging by treating your top level contexts as types of activities - rather then treating them as locations. Then include any location specific sub-contexts at a lower level.

For example, I can pursue "work:anywhere" context tasks at home (or at the coffee shop), but I can't tackle "work:office" at those locations.

mcoad

2008-01-18, 09:48 AM

While not perfect, a context hierarchy can help with many (most?) of the situations where you really want context tagging.

I agree. This can help a lot and I do it. But, as you say, it’s not perfect. If you need to define an aspect of a context more finely, so to speak, as against others, it‘s great, and often this is enough. But where there are genuinely two or more quite different contexts, it doesn’t work. Quite a number of examples have been given during the thread.

floatinglist

2008-01-19, 12:01 PM

A lot has been written, so this post is more of a vote for multiple contexts.

Speed
It takes time to decide if its better to place something in a specific context. It is faster to skip this decision and simply assign multiple contexts. Sometimes a task really can be done in more than one place.

Ease of Implementation
Why have a workaround when the database backend easily allows for this tagging-like feature?

UI Problem?
In the lists, separate different contexts using commas (canonical grammar) or the @ symbol (canonical GTD). Show the same task multiple times when viewing all contexts. Checking the task off will check it off in all contexts. The power of the context view is that you can focus on one context while working, so the awkwardness of seeing the same task listed multiple times should come up only when you're reviewing things, and when you're reviewing things, this will help make it easier to see what tasks have multiple contexts (to allow you to review your decision to place those tasks into multiple contexts).

Like Paper
This is easy to do on paper, and it is what I did on paper. If you don't want to use the feature, it remains optional and out of the way.

Optionally Out of Sight
Allowing this gets rid of a nuisance for those who wish to use it, and allows a better way to work out of context mode. If you don't use this, it stays out of the way.

Mammoth

2008-01-20, 07:09 PM

I vote for tags or contexts, I can make either work.

I understand the people railing against it--I try to keep my contexts from multiplying too, or the system will collapse under its own weight, so to speak.

But if you can hide or ignore extra contexts or tags, then it really wouldn't affect you.

Here's where I can use tags. We have a context for actions, a _where_--e.g. "@phone" or "@computer." I'd like a second context to be _who_ the action is for, e.g. "Rich" or "Board of Directors" or "Maintenance Dept." Then I can make a view of, say, things I need to get done for Rich.

Possibly, I could have a context for who I perform these tasks with, e.g. "Ted" or "IT dept." But that may be overburdening the system a bit.

gamov

2008-01-21, 12:13 AM

Yes, Mammoth synthesis is good. the @phone @rick is one of the great features of TaskPaper.

mcoad

2008-01-21, 04:58 AM

Yes, Mammoth synthesis is good. the @phone @rick is one of the great features of TaskPaper.

This is a good example of the point raised a few posts ago. You can do this to an extent with subcontexts, ie. Phone : Rick. But, as Mammoth implies, this doesn’t solve the problem if you also need a separate context for Rick where you want to put all the tasks referring to him, among them the phone call. This is a good simple example of why multiple contexts is so useful (essential, many would say). With the same task in both contexts you don’t risk missing it whichever of the two contexts presents itself first.

a11en

2008-01-25, 09:47 PM

Coming from early Kinkless and GTD reading, I have to say that I think single context is best, even though at times it's confusing. For *me* (not to get anyone's goat up) if I don't chose a single context, I have trouble juggling the context lists at all. Never mind trying to print them out for lo-fi carry... I'll have duplicates everywhere.

But, now, Tags, in my mind could be horribly useful. The reason I mention it at all, is merely because you can do so many things with a flexible tagging system. One, which can be extremely useful, is merely to get a list of all tasks related to a client (perhaps there are many projects with said client, over many different contexts etc.). So, typing &ElementalSystems could load all items currently available etc., for that particular client. Might be nice to know which tasks are out there related to this particular client. It's not really a context, it's not really a project. Sure, its' related to one dude, but perhaps you buy stuff from this client as well as serve stuff to this same client? A project mess can surely ensue.

Another wonderful tagging benefit would be to implement other decision factors. For instance, high cost, low cost. You could easily tag something $$$$ -v- $$. Then, added to the choices of errands, you could select a low $$ errand list (perhaps you're poor this month) and get thigns done that are needed still. The list is pretty endless.

So, I see tags as an added filtering ability, leveraging the idea of 'Focus'. To be honest, I'd love to see more serious reporting of completed and archived tasks. For instance, show me all the tasks associated with &ElementalSystems and all dates of tasks completed. Or, show me all tasks related to three contexts, and how many were completed last month as a pie-chart or bar-chart. [Somewhat useless, but perhaps you're spending all your time on the computer tasks, and never getting done your calls?] These types of things can be found out as you start to take data.

Ok, sorry I went off on a bit of a tangent there. My couple farthings worth, is to keep single context, for me it just makes sense that way, and add Tagging and support for filtering by tags, even focusing by tags. Wouldn't be nice to see all items in every context that is associated with "Sue" as previously mentioned? or, if you like "Low Energy"? [which is a GTDism]

Just my thoughts...
-Allen

BTW, there are 4 items that you are to use for choosing next actions in GTD...

Context
Time available
Energy Available
Priority

Omnifocus currently only consists of the first two in this list. And I suspect most people (including me) live out of the Project View, which isn't really leveraging the GTD habits... Speaking of Habits, if you're Covey-esque, you use a few more as well as this short list... Tagging would fit the bill there as well.

If the above list were implemented, a Focus session could include something like:

"Show me all available items with high priority that takes 30 minutes or less and are low-energy. [it's friday after all, and almost quitting time...]" Now, *that* would produce a set of data that would help you chose your next action...

nkasuri

2008-02-29, 06:44 AM

I think it would be really useful to be able to sort tasks using multiple contexts. For example, I currently sort my tasks depending on what sort of activity it is (Phone, email, meeting, read/review). This works well for me, but sometimes I want to view a task within the context of the person it relates to. If I could assign each task a context by type and person, the application would become much more useful for me.

yucca

2008-02-29, 10:13 AM

[composed before the question got moved to the old thread - just a comment, not a complaint]

I think you are asking for context tagging. It is a request that many have asked for, but one that may or may not be addressed in a future OF release.

If you must have this capability now, then you may want to look at Things. (http://culturedcode.com/things/) Someone posted a link in another thread, but the review can be found in this blog post (http://www.viewfromthedock.com/2008/02/04/gtd-based-task-management-apps-v-things/).

What OF does support is hierarchical contexts. Which sort of accomplishes what you want:

Phone
Phone:John
Phone:Mary

Email
Email:John
Email:Mary

OR

John
John:Phone
John:Email
John:Meeting

Mary
Mary:Phone
Mary:Email
Mary:Meeting

You get the idea. This approach may work better for you with a hierarchy that is location based, and then activity based. Then create a context group for each person with whom you regularly need to utilize to complete a task. This might look something like:

Office
Office:Phone
Office:Email
Office:Meeting
Office:Mac

People
People:John
People:Mary

If you only need a few "People" contexts, you could just as easily dispense with the People group, and just have a context for each person.

Lucas

2008-02-29, 07:09 PM

BTW, there are 4 items that you are to use for choosing next actions in GTD...

Context
Time available
Energy Available
Priority

Omnifocus currently only consists of the first two in this list.

"Show me all available items with high priority that takes 30 minutes or less and are low-energy. [it's friday after all, and almost quitting time...]" Now, *that* would produce a set of data that would help you chose your next action...

I split most of my contexts between high-attention versions and low-attention versions and do exactly that. It's made a big difference.

Boatguy

2008-03-18, 03:19 PM

jasong

2008-03-18, 05:14 PM

There is too much dogma around contexts.

What if I sit on my computer every day and all my projects can be done online? Is there just one context? All resources are physically available for all projects at all times.

I need some way to decide what to do next other than struggling with the due dates structure.

That all your projects can be done at one computer online doesn't mean you have only one context. That is a rather narrow view of "contexts" that has come up many times on this and other forums.

There's no reason a context couldn't be any of

* email
* web
* Basecamp
* Research
* Yahoo
* Google Docs Spreadsheet
etc.

The point of contexts is to have the specific tools or or environment needed to complete the job. Sometimes you have to spend some time thinking through what those contexts are, and not just settle for "online".

Is that really all you need? If you weren't at your regular machine, and you didn't have a web browser, could you still do the task? What if the website you needed wasn't accessible, could you still do the task?

Note, of course, this has nothing to do with multiple contexts or due dates or any of that confusion.

It just means you need to think about how you work, what you need to get things done, and create the contexts which are unique to you.

joelande

2008-03-18, 05:34 PM

That is a rather narrow view of "contexts" that has come up many times on this and other forums.

There's no reason a context couldn't be any of

* email
* web
* Basecamp
* Research
* Yahoo
* Google Docs Spreadsheet
etc.
Yes there is. It doesn't work. Not saying it doesn't work for you. But it certainly didn't work for me. I tried dividing into contexts like GoLive, FileMaker, Groupware, etc.

It was just not efficient. Spent too much time trying to organize contexts, trying to decide which context an action should go into, and in the real world of actually doing things, it did not make sense to work on seven unrelated projects in GoLive in a row, simply because I had launched GoLive.

If you weren't at your regular machine, and you didn't have a web browser, could you still do the task?
Well I think that is just it. For those of us who have posted this problem throughout the life of this forum, that just never happens. We live on our computers. They are laptops. We take them whenever we go.

This is a very real problem for us. That's why it keeps coming up.

What if the website you needed wasn't accessible, could you still do the task?
But you are mentioning a circumstance that is just not likely to happen. At least not enough to justify classifying it into its own micro-cosm context. It would be like traveling with a portable power generator everywhere you went, because there might be a time when the power goes out.

It just means you need to think about how you work, what you need to get things done, and create the contexts which are unique to you.
Well this is what we are trying to do. And it is difficult. And we ask for help and guidance, trying to find something that makes sense.

jasong

2008-03-18, 05:54 PM

Joe, you should post an example of your tasks, and under what circumstances you can do each one, so we can offer concrete suggestions. (If you've already done so, just point me to the post in question.)

Figuring out contexts is one of the harder things of GTD, but it's also one of the least important in my mind. Spending too much time hashing through them is one of the problems with GTD. Pick a set and go. If you find yourself looking at a context unable to decide which item to do, close your eyes and point to one.

Contexts don't tell you what to do, they tell you what you can do.

If "online" is all you need, and you're always at one computer that's always online on sites that never stop working, and you're having trouble deciding what to do next, take a moment to think through why you can't just go down the list in order. What about the list is preventing you from getting something done?

in the real world of actually doing things, it did not make sense to work on seven unrelated projects in GoLive in a row, simply because I had launched GoLive.

Whoa! That's enlightening.

Why do you feel you need to do everything in the GoLive context just because you're working on one project that uses that context?

For me, contexts are used

1. To inform me of what I can do when I'm in/around that context ("I'm in GoLive, what can I do here?")

2. To inform me which tools/environment I need to complete a task ("To finish this project, I need to update my layout. That's in GoLive, let me launch it.")

There's no requirement or even strong suggestion that you power through everything in a context just because you happen to be in that context. Sure, that's a great way to finish off a bunch of stuff at once if you want to do that, but there's no reason to stay in GoLive if you're moving a specific project forward.

joelande

2008-03-18, 06:47 PM

Pick a set and go....and you're having trouble deciding what to do next, take a moment to think through why you can't just go down the list in order. What about the list is preventing you from getting something done?
Well nothing but psychology. When the majority of your tasks fit into one context, the list is very long - and doesn't feel any different than a traditional to-do list. Even though I have offloaded my mind from remembering what tasks I need to do, becuase I am confindent they are in the system, and I do regular reviews.

Looking at that long list can be daunting.

Whoa! That's enlightening.

Why do you feel you need to do everything in the GoLive context just because you're working on one project that uses that context?
Well it was what I felt you (and others before you) were suggesting, with comments like:
There's no reason a context couldn't be any of

* email
* web
* Basecamp
* Research
* Yahoo
* Google Docs Spreadsheet
etc

These are all application based. Therefor suggesting I should have a context named "GoLive" (similar to your Google Docs Spreadsheet) and work on a bunch of GoLive-related actions. And I have found (due to the nature of project workflow and thought process) that doing that just doesn't work well for me.

So I think for those of us who work at the computer constantly are still struggling with these daunting, sometimes overwhelming, long task lists.

I use perspectives, and search, and do the project view-focus-context view dance to help reduce that long list (and anxiety), but it still feels just a bit clunky to me. I haven't found anything better (I have seen things that do some things better, but overall not better), but I am looking forward (hopefully) to some subtle refinements in future versions.

Also, personally, I have been asking for a tagging feature not so much to implement a concept of "multiple contexts" as to have more powerful search and viewing tools. Many of my actions can cross both multiple projects and context; and nested projects and contexts only goes so far.

The same arguments can be made for organizing files in the Finder: Yes you can place files in folders, and you can nest folders, and you can use aliases to put files in more than one place, and you can search using Spotlight - but that all feels just a bit clunky;

...but tagging opens up a whole new world...

Toadling

2008-03-19, 10:15 AM

Also, personally, I have been asking for a tagging feature not so much to implement a concept of "multiple contexts" as to have more powerful search and viewing tools. Many of my actions can cross both multiple projects and context; and nested projects and contexts only goes so far.

The same arguments can be made for organizing files in the Finder: Yes you can place files in folders, and you can nest folders, and you can use aliases to put files in more than one place, and you can search using Spotlight - but that all feels just a bit clunky;

...but tagging opens up a whole new world...

Personally, I find jasong's suggestions to be spot on. It took me a while to find my right set of contexts, and I probably still have a bit of refining to do, but once I did, I found that I didn't need multiple contexts. In fact, in some ways I actually prefer the simplicity of a single context.

But tagging for the purpose of searching and narrowing in on a specific subset of tasks (maybe as additional metadata rather than in place of the current context field), is maybe not a bad idea, and I'm certainly open to it if OG decides to go in that direction.

What worries me is that tagging systems sometimes seem better in theory than in practice, I think.

About a year ago, I got the tagging bug and tried a whole variety of tagging systems (in the Finder and stand-alone database products like Yojimbo). I religiously tagged all my data and kept everything in one big pile, using smart collections to pull out what I needed later.

Several months later, though, I didn't feel any better organized and was, frankly, annoyed with the tiresome process of tagging stuff every time I had a new bit of information. Maybe I was over-tagging with too much metadata, but I had reached a point where I began to yearn for the simplicity of a tag-less system: plop stuff in a folder and move on, relying on hierarchical structure and full content search to narrow-in and find what I needed later.

It turned out that the overhead and complexity of adding tags and smart collections just wasn't worth the minor benefit in retrieval later. I wonder if maybe Apple's design people have come to the same conclusion. Maybe that's why we haven't seen a system-wide tagging implementation from Apple, even though all the necessary infrastructure is already present?

Much to my surprise, I also found that traditional hierarchical structures (i.e. folders or indented outlines) actually allowed me to better visualize the structure of data. It was easier to find things by simply browsing because I could easily remember the position of the item in my mind and didn't have to rely as much on remembering names of tags, which was always harder for me for some reason.

I guess hierarchical structures don't necessarily preclude the use of tags, but in many cases, apps try replace traditional hierarchies with tagging systems. That's one of the reasons I prefer OmniFocus over Things.

jasong

2008-03-22, 04:23 PM

When the majority of your tasks fit into one context, the list is very long - and doesn't feel any different than a traditional to-do list.[...] Looking at that long list can be daunting.

Absolutely. The “long list” issue is a big one even for those of us with multiple contexts, and an indicator that either things on the list need to be deferred, or the context is wrong (too broad, generally). My “research” context is a dumping grounds, sometimes.

Why do you feel you need to do everything in the GoLive context just because you're working on one project that uses that context?

Well it was what I felt you (and others before you) were suggesting.... I should have a context named "GoLive" (similar to your Google Docs Spreadsheet) and work on a bunch of GoLive-related actions. And I have found (due to the nature of project workflow and thought process) that doing that just doesn't work well for me.

I ask again, why do you feel that having a context automatically means having to work on all items in that context at once? I never said that. I explicitly said

There's no requirement or even strong suggestion that you power through everything in a context just because you happen to be in that context. Sure, that's a great way to finish off a bunch of stuff at once if you want to do that, but there's no reason to stay in GoLive if you're moving a specific project forward.

Let’s make this concrete. You have the following projects and actions:

* Update Jason’s website
** Get the latest text from Jason (computer)
** Change colors in graphics (computer)
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive (computer)
** Upload new pages (computer)

* Update Joe’s website
** Get the latest text from Joe (computer)
** Change colors in graphics (computer)
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive (computer)
** Upload new pages (computer)

* Update Foo’s website (x10)

Your Computer context is going to look terrible.

Computer
** Get the latest text from Jason
** Change colors in graphics
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive
** Upload new pages
** Get the latest text from Joe
** Change colors in graphics
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive
** Upload new pages
** etc.

That’s eight things for two projects; imagine if you had a dozen projects!

Suppose your projects instead were
* Update Jason’s website
** Get the latest text from Jason (email)
** Change colors in graphics (Photoshop)
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive (GoLive)
** Upload new pages (Transmit)

* Update Joe’s website
** Get the latest text from Joe (email)
** Change colors in graphics (Photoshop)
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive (GoLive)
** Upload new pages (Transmit)

Suddenly your contexts look much easier:

Email
** Get the latest text from Jason
** Get the latest text from Joe

Photoshop
** Change colors in graphics--Jason
** Change colors in graphics--Joe

GoLive
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive--Jason
** Incorporate new text and graphics in GoLive--Joe

Transmit
** Upload new pages--Jason
** Upload new pages--Joe

Imagine you’ve done everything you need to do except the GoLive pieces. Let’s also say you have 10 things you need to do in GoLive, for 10 different projects. How you proceed depends on your preference. You can

1. Do everything that needs to done in GoLive at once, “powering through” 10 different projects and thus moving them all forward;

2. Do only the one project you’re working on (say “Update Jason’s website”) in GoLive, and when you’re done, look at the next item for this project. You leave your GoLive context when you’re done with this piece of the project and you move on to the next context for this project.

I’ll say it again: You don’t have to stay in a context and do everything in it if you are focusing on a specific project.

joelande

2008-03-22, 05:04 PM

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I see tags as a useful tool, you don't. That's OK.

I understand what you are saying in your example above, and I have even tried it, it just doesn't work for me. I used to have a long, delineated list of sub contexts for computer. I found it to be a non-effective tool for me. The amount of time maintaing the contexts and assignments versus the benefit in my work flow wasn't positive. And don't get me wrong, the same argument can certainly be said for tagging. But one of the benefits (as well as detriments) of tagging, is that it isn't as structured as nested contexts.

Your argument is focused on only one point - structuring contexts.

I posted previously that I was interested in tags, not necessarily to implement a "multiple contexts" feature (although that could work too). I think of tags as a useful tool for searching and viewing.

It gives the app more flexibility.

And in the end, I don't really see what the big deal is. If you don't want to use tags, or multiple contexts, don't use them.

jasong

2008-03-22, 05:43 PM

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I see tags as a useful tool, you don't. That's OK.

None of my comments of the last few posts have made any mention of tags.

But now I must ask: what's the difference between

* action (in context GoLive)

and

* action (tagged with GoLive)?

Or is that not how you'd use tags?

Your argument is focused on only one point - structuring contexts.

And again, nothing in my recent posts said anything about structuring contexts, only that breaking a single context into multiple, focused contexts might be useful. I never said they need to be hierarchical to be useful.

Instead of one "computer" context, have six separate contexts, one for each of the things you do or use on the computer.

This long-running thread has been wide-ranging. Just to be clear, my latest comments all stem from this:

What if I sit on my computer every day and all my projects can be done online? Is there just one context? All resources are physically available for all projects at all times.

That is the context under which I've been commenting.

joelande

2008-03-22, 07:04 PM

None of my comments of the last few posts have made any mention of tags.

But now I must ask: what's the difference between

* action (in context GoLive)

and

* action (tagged with GoLive)?

Or is that not how you'd use tags?

Yes that is how I would use tags.

And the difference is subtle. Some may argue what is the difference between Firefox and Safari? Or the difference between Yojimbo and Journler. Maybe not the best examples, but you get my point. Things can be accomplished in more than one way, and sometimes it is the subtle differences that make one more pleasurable to use than the other.

Some have argued for tags to be used as multiple contexts - they have been tossed around interchangeably.

I see tags as more of a viewing and searching tool.

And again, nothing in my recent posts said anything about structuring contexts, [...]

Instead of one "computer" context, have six separate contexts, one for each of the things you do or use on the computer.

Yes but, if the contexts WEREN'T hierarchal (structured), there would be no easy way to view all computer items at once, for example.

Of course you could create an endless sea of perspectives based on custom selections I suppose, but as I posted previously, sometimes it feels like OmniFocus is just a tad bit clunky; switching modes, view bars, selections, perspectives, etc. I just think it can be improved a little bit, that's all. It's still the best I have found.

This long-running thread has been wide-ranging. Just to be clear, my latest comments all stem from this:

Originally Posted by Boatguy
What if I sit on my computer every day and all my projects can be done online? Is there just one context? All resources are physically available for all projects at all times.

That is the context under which I've been commenting.
And, as it is a long post, it is clearly evident that people are still struggling with it and have different opinions on how to help those that are sturggling with it.

I don't see a problem with that.

leko

2008-04-06, 11:54 AM

Hello,
I am a new user, and in the feild of education. Here is an example in my mind that requires multiple contexts. I have a story I want to assign to the class. I have read it before, but in order to create a suitable lesson I must reread it. So, I need a context to tell me to do that lets say read.

So we have our action "Story" in the context "read" However, I do not have enough copies of the story (which is public domain so I can copy it freely with no damage to my morality). I do not need to read it in order to copy it. I do however, want to know to copy it next time the copier is free. In my mind the only way to lay this out correctly is to put the activity

"story" in both contexts "read" and "copier" I may have botched the language, but this improvement would vastly streamline my work.

Thank you for listenning.
leko

Toadling

2008-04-06, 02:40 PM

But reading the story and copying the story are two different things. It seems to me they should be separate actions, perhaps in the same project called "Prepare for Class." As separate actions, they could each have their own, proper context.

There are arguments for mutiple contexts, but this one doesn't convince me.

jasong

2008-04-06, 05:02 PM

Welcome leko,

Your example isn't a reason for multiple contexts; rather it's a reason for breaking down activities appropriately. What I think you want is

Create Lesson Plan for Story
* Copy story (Copier)
* Read story (Reading)
* etc.

You might make this a parallel project, as the order in which you do it doesn't matter; you might further subdivide or group other related activities; but the one thing you don't need here is multiple contexts for an activity, as you have two activities with two different contexts.

yucca

2008-04-07, 12:38 PM

Leko's example task perfectly illustrates why templates can be so helpful for some people. Leko will be doing the same set of activities over and over. It would be a real time saver to have a clean way of doing this . . . something better than the makeshift solutions that we have now.

For example, I have some action groups that I use all the time. I use the Duplicate function now, but it would be far more elegant to save these somewhere and invoke them off the File menu (just an idea). IOW, something like File -> Insert -> Template -> (list of templates).

My take on a possible template (with contexts) for Leko:

Add book "x" to class "y" lesson plan (defaults to serial mode)
Get book @ library
Copy book @ library (or wherever you do this sort of thing)
Review book @ mac (assumes that you will be taking notes and starting an outline for the additional lecture notes)
Review notes @ mac
Update lesson plan @ mac
ADD SPECIAL CASE STEPS HERE (things like props, visuals, etc.)
ADD PRACTICE LECTURE STEPS HERE (if you are in to that sort of thing)

Be.

2008-04-08, 10:41 AM

Some theses in support of the call for 'multiple Contexts' (and multiple Projects, too):

1. Some users don't want to plan, they just want to be reminded of pending Tasks.
2. Not everybody works the same way.
3. To increase efficiency, OF needs to provide distinctly more/better basic functionality than a traditional paper list.
4. Managing and remembering two taxonomies with nested folders (i.e. Projects/Context lists) requires some brainwork. Managing and remembering an additional third taxonomy (i.e. tag list) requires disproportionately more brainwork.
5. If there is a tagging system, to be useful, it must be multilevel (nested) and allow multiple setting of tags.
6. Setting up, assigning, reviewing, reassigning (multiple) multilevel tags requires very much brainwork and mousing.
7. Elaborate planning shouldn't be an end in and of itself.
8. If planning and mousing around takes more time and brainwork than performing the task itself, one should question the benefit of using the system at all.
9. Most users don't care if they're given too much functionality as long as they have the choice to opt out.

My vote: multiple Contexts, multiple Projects, no need for Tags (but if some prefer Tags, why not letting have them...)

Be.

Toadling

2008-04-08, 03:09 PM

1. Some users don't want to plan, they just want to be reminded of pending Tasks.

I don't understand. How does not wanting to plan lead to needing multiple contexts? Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to plan, they won't use any contexts or tags.

2. Not everybody works the same way.

OK, but adding features for every conceivable workflow is impractical. To keep OmniFocus streamlined, we need to compromise on a limited feature set that most people can use.

3. To increase efficiency, OF needs to provide distinctly more/better basic functionality than a traditional paper list.

I agree, but I think OmniFocus has already achieved superiority over traditional paper lists. Maybe multiple contexts would be a good addition, but it's not necessary for OF to trump pen and paper.

4. Managing and remembering two taxonomies with nested folders (i.e. Projects/Context lists) requires some brainwork. Managing and remembering an additional third taxonomy (i.e. tag list) requires disproportionately more brainwork.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this one. Unfortunately, I think adding multiple contexts also increases complexity and the need for additional brainwork.

5. If there is a tagging system, to be useful, it must be multilevel (nested) and allow multiple setting of tags.

It'd be nice if a tagging system allowed nesting but I don't think it's a necessity. I assume the assigning of multiple tags to an item would a given though.

6. Setting up, assigning, reviewing, reassigning (multiple) multilevel tags requires very much brainwork and mousing.

Yes, but so would multiple contexts. It's hard to say if one would require more brainwork than the other. But either way, the complexity is increased to some degree.

7. Elaborate planning shouldn't be an end in and of itself.
8. If planning and mousing around takes more time and brainwork than performing the task itself, one should question the benefit of using the system at all.

Are these arguments for or against multiple contexts/tagging? Doesn't multiple contexts/tagging lead to more planning rather than less?

9. Most users don't care if they're given too much functionality as long as they have the choice to opt out.

I'm not convinced this is true. I think most users actually prefer simplicity over feature bloat, even if those extra features can be turned off.

But regardless of which is true, adding new features still costs time, effort, complexity, and risks introducing bugs. Clearly some new features should be added, but they should be chosen very carefully. Throwing everything in with the option to "turn it off if you don't use it" is a recipe for bloat, instability, and loss of focus.

I don't mean to be a curmudgeon on the multiple contexts/tagging. Personally, I'm not sure I'd use either, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

dfjdejulio

2008-04-25, 10:45 AM

I really try to think of contexts in terms of "what do I absolutely need to have to accomplish this task?". If you think of them in this way (and you're rigorous about your processing) there is really very little if anything that needs multiple contexts.

I agree with this. So far, I create a context when an "I cannot do task such-and-such without so-and-so" situation comes up, and not any other time.

But, consider this scenario:

For some tasks (eg. "revise a document"), I just need my mac. Network doesn't matter, location doesn't matter, my lap will do fine as a working surface.

For some tasks, I need a desk (home or office will do), so I can spread out papers and so forth -- I do not always have my mac when I am at a desk, and not all desk tasks require my mac.

For some tasks, I need both my mac and a desk. (Doing my taxes this year fit into this category.)

For some tasks, I need the stacks of technical documentation that are in my office; my office happens to have a desk. I do not always have my mac when I'm at my office, and do not always need it for some of these tasks. (Studying a standards document and an architecture document and how they interrelate is an example of "need my office, don't need my mac". If I know my day will be filled with stuff like that, I sometimes leave my mac at home.)

For some tasks, I need my mac and those stacks of technical documentation. (Implementing code based on an architecture document and standards document is an example of "need my office, need my mac".)

For some tasks, I need to work with one of my co-workers. I do not always have my mac when I'm with that co-worker, and do not always need it for some of these tasks. I also do not always need the documentation from my office for these tasks, so some for example we could do if we happened to be having lunch somewhere.

For some tasks, I need my mac, the documentation from my office, and my co-worker in order to make any progress.

(Informally going over an architecture plan is an example of "need my co-worker but nothing else". Formally going over a specific implementation plan is an example of "need my co-worker and my office but not a mac". Implementing a feature together for which each of us has all the necessary information in our heads is an example of "need my co-worker and a mac but not my office" (so we could do that in a meeting room or something). Implementing a feature for which we both have to work together and we both need access to technical documentation is an example of "need my co-worker, need my office, need my mac".)

I am struggling with how to represent this sort of situation. My ultimate goal is to be able to ask the question "given the resources I have right now, what are the tasks it's possible for me to make progress on?".

When I'm in my office, and have my mac, and don't have my co-worker, I want to see all the tasks that just require my mac, and all the tasks that just require my office, and all the tasks that require both my mac and my office, but none of the tasks that require my co-worker. If he comes in in the afternoon, I want to be able to indicate that he's now available, and suddenly see those tasks show up as well.

Do I really need to make seven different contexts (2 cubed, for three present/absent conditions, minus the "none present" combination) and always remember to select combinations of them (perspectives?) to achieve this?

I notice that I'm asking for the opposite of what most folks here are asking for. I want a task to be shown only if all the contexts that apply are currently selected ("show me things I can do when I have my computer, my manuals, and my co-worker"); others seem to want it to be shown if any of the contexts that apply are selected ("show me things related to the phone", "show me things involving Sue").

Any ideas?

joelande

2008-04-25, 11:24 AM

Very well illustrated.

I have to agree I have the same problem and set of circumstances.

When I started with OF, I had LOTS of contexts: some were software-application based (GoLive, FileMaker, PowerSchool, PhotoShop, Server Admin, Parallels, etc), some were concept based (Budget, Network, etc).

That wasn't working. So, I parred down (at the time I came across an article of 43folders about simplifying contexts, and it seemed to fit with many of the problems I was having).

So I simplified, and I know have a minimal, more broad-in-scope set of contexts:
@Work
----office
----calls
----E-mail
----Agenda
--------CoWorker A
--------CoWorker B
----Waiting
--------CoWorker A
--------CoWorker B
@Errands
@Home
@Reading
@Training

I use the outer-level for general assignment, for example:
(1) I can often work at home, so that type of work is simply assigned to "@Work", and can be done at the office or at home, whereas tasks that need to be done at the office, get the assignment "@Work: Office"

(2) General agenda items will simply be assigned "@Work:Agenda", but colleagues that I frequently work with get the more specific assignment "@Work:Agenda:CoWorker A"

So I can click on "@Work" and see all work-related items, including what I could potentially work on at home, and I can click on "@Work:Office" and see things that HAVE to be done at the office, however I cannot EXCLUDE the "@Work:Office" items when I am working at home.

It is working better than the long list of specific-context items, I started with; but I still feel it is not working the way I would think it should conceptually. So far teh only thing that I see as a solution is tagging and/or multiple contexts.

I struggle with exactly what you posted, and totally relate to what you posted. The above probably didn't help you with solution, as I don't feel it is working perfectly for me either, but I wanted to at least let you know I feel your pain (and hopefully the developers will see this too).

Ken Case

2008-04-25, 11:37 AM

For some tasks, I need my mac, the documentation from my office, and my co-worker in order to make any progress.

The way I handle this is to always file things under the most rare (or least controllable) context, which in the above example would be my co-worker, for me. And then, if possible, I make changes to my environment to make the task possible. (For example, if I'm meeting with Tim, I can invite him to come to my office where we can look up the documentation we need to work on the task in question.)

The goal is to remember to get this stuff done, which won't happen if I never see the task until all of the right contexts happen to be present at exactly the same time—and only if I also happen to be looking at OmniFocus at the time and if I've told OmniFocus about the exact set of contexts I'm in at the moment (morning, in my office, 28 other people in the building, etc.).

Yes, this does mean that tasks will seem to be available in my context lists when I can't actually do them. (For example, if Tim and I are in California and I check my Tim context, we can't really just go grab the documentation from Omni's offices in Seattle.) But that's easily handled; I just defer the stuff that I can't actually do at the moment. (In this case, I'd set the task's start date to a day when I know Tim and I will both be back at Omni.) And if I realize that I actually see Tim more often than I'm around the stack of documentation, I'll change the task's context to "stack of documentation" and when I'm near it I'll try to find Tim.

Does that make sense?

My overall goal is to get my tasks done, not to figure out the exact set of circumstances required to get them done. I don't want to be spending much time managing my tasks, because that's time not spent on actually doing them.

Ken Case

2008-04-25, 12:04 PM

So I can click on "@Work" and see all work-related items, including what I could potentially work on at home, and I can click on "@Work:Office" and see things that HAVE to be done at the office, however I cannot EXCLUDE the "@Work:Office" items when I am working at home.

My approach to this is to make "Work" a folder in Planning Mode (rather than a top-level context). I can then focus on the Work folder in Planning Mode before switching over to Context Mode, which means that I'll only see Work tasks no matter which contexts I have selected. (I also have folders for "Family" and "Personal", so I can focus on those when I want to completely exclude my work tasks.)

Does that help?

dfjdejulio

2008-04-25, 12:07 PM

The goal is to remember to get this stuff done, and if I never see the task until all of the right contexts happen to be present at exactly the same time...

Ah, see, I think my main goal is not to remember to get things done, but to get things done, which requires that I avoid analysis paralysis. ("Remember" on its own is a solved problem -- flat todo lists do that. "Remember" is necessary but not sufficient.)

Today, I'll go: "okay, I finished something, what do I need to do next?". Then I'll go "HOLY CRAP, there are 827 items on that todo list!". Then I'll curl up in a foetal position under my desk and rock back and forth while sucking my thumb (which isn't very productive and if I do too much of it I expect they'll eventually stop paying me).

The very point is, if all the right contexts don't happen to be present at the exact same time, I do not want to see that task. At least, when I'm performing the "figure out what to do next right now" step, that is. But this is what I really need help on, due to my ADD -- if "figure out what to do next" comes up empty, I can always dilate the scope and ask "if I had more resources right now, what could I do next?".

Ken Case

2008-04-25, 12:58 PM

Ah, see, I think my main goal is not to remember to get things done, but to get things done, which requires that I avoid analysis paralysis.

Thank you! That's a very good point, and I think I have a better understanding of the problem you're trying to solve now.

Contexts are one of the tools you can use to break your task list into smaller, more manageable groups, but I also use several other tools in OmniFocus to answer the question of "What should I do next?"

First, of course, I check is my "Due" perspective, which shows me which actions have some sort of time pressure. (That's Context mode, grouped and sorted by due date, showing actions which are due soon.) After all, if something is due today, I need to go do it even if it involves a trip to the bank that I normally wouldn't make.

Now that those are out of the way, I look at my "Flagged" perspective: these are the things that I've previously identified that I'd like to do sooner rather than later. (That's Context Mode, grouped by context, sorted by project, showing only available, flagged actions.) I try to be sparing with my use of flags, so for me there are only eight available flagged actions at the moment. If you have hundreds of flagged actions, though, you'll probably want to continue to break it down as described below.

With time-critical and flagged actions out of the way, anything that's currently available to me is equally important to do, I just need to do it efficiently. So I look at my "Available" perspective (Context Mode, grouped by context, sorted by project, showing available actions), and now I see 284 actions. Ouch, yes, I feel your pain.

Well, let's select just the largest of those contexts, Mac:Internet, so I can work on a bunch of things without shifting context. That narrows it down to 159 actions, but that's still a bit of a jumble, so let's organize them into projects by changing the context mode grouping to "Group by project". That way related actions are together, which lets me work more efficiently and hopefully makes it more likely that I can get an entire project off my plate.

OK, so now my actions are grouped into just 24 projects, and each of those projects has 1-14 actions available in this context. I'll pick one of these projects and focus on it (by right- or control-clicking and selecting "Focus"). I now have a nice, small, manageable list of related actions that I can do in my current context. Once I finish those, I might want to expand my context focus to try to finish the project completely, or I might expand my project focus to give me more tasks in my current context. Either approach is reasonable, and either way I can focus back down into another small list of related actions using the above technique.

Does that help?

dfjdejulio

2008-04-25, 01:00 PM

Does that help?

It's at least interesting. I just bought the product today and am still learning all the nooks and crannies, and am not adept at making custom perspectives yet. I'll see if I can make that work for me.

joelande

2008-04-25, 04:34 PM

My approach to this is to make "Work" a folder in Planning Mode (rather than a top-level context). I can then focus on the Work folder in Planning Mode before switching over to Context Mode, which means that I'll only see Work tasks no matter which contexts I have selected. (I also have folders for "Family" and "Personal", so I can focus on those when I want to completely exclude my work tasks.)

Does that help?

Only partially. My problem is managing work related items that I may do at home or at the office.

So if I use your model of creating a work folder in Planning mode (By the way, I kind of do the reverse, I have a "Personal" folder in planning mode to separate non-work projects and tasks). So when I am at home, and I want to do some work-related tasks, I would: (1) focus on the "Work" folder in planning mode, (2) move to context mode, ...now how do I see the work related items, but only the items that do not require me to be in the office?...

Are you saying/implying I should then create an additional "flex" work context that I can do either at the office or at home?

I guess that would work...Of course, I was trying to rid myself of that extra psychological impact of having to assign each item to a "@Flex" context versus a "@Office" context...(even though I know I was already doing that by choosing "@Work" vs "@Work:Office"... it just feels like more work)

joelande

2008-04-25, 04:48 PM

Thank you! That's a very good point, and I think I have a better understanding of the problem you're trying to solve now.

Contexts are one of the tools you can use to break your task list into smaller, more manageable groups, but I also use several other tools in OmniFocus to answer the question of "What should I do next?"

....

Does that help?

Yes, actually it does - that is a helpful post. (Although I am still not totally happy/comfortable with my contexts options)

This is the type of advanced video I hope to see some day in your training series...(if that is still being worked on)

mcoad

2008-04-26, 08:35 AM

Seeing this kind of discussion, and especially Ken’s input as an Omnian, I’m thinking that it might be very useful if there were a dedicated page on the site with concrete sample working scenarios and suggestions. I know it’s asking to increase the workload for you guys at Omni, but a section of the site where these could be presented in a redacted and clear way, with screenshots, might be very helpful, beyond the looser forum discussion.

It’s evident that juggling tasks and contexts is one of the things that most taxes users, especially new ones. It’s easy to get in knots and perhaps some potential users are put of from the outset because of it, and such guidance would be instructive and inspiring. Now that OF has been up and running for some time and there’s a lot of user experience out there, it might be a good time for such a thing.

Any thoughts?

Be.

2008-04-27, 06:45 AM

Reading the very interesting and detailed explanations by 'Omnians' and others, I am just wondering whether OmniFocus is (a) about a software built to support the use of a certain suggested working method + guidance to learn this working method itself; or (b) about a software built to support any working method the user thinks fits his/her needs and environment best. Considering the number of lines about how to organize one's work in this thread and the understandable request in the previous post, I assume in OF's current status it's rather the first.

bigcloits

2008-07-18, 07:41 AM

Don’t be afraid to just duplicate actions and give each of the duplicates a different context. At first this seemed hackish and un-tidy to me, but then I realized, hey, it’s kind of nice to come across a duplicate action that you’ve already done and check it off again!

KeithFK

2008-07-20, 10:41 PM

I am new to GTD, OF, and to this forum. Although I have read through much of this thread, I may have missed something. I'll keep reading, but I would be very appreciative for any comments/suggestions you might have based on my comments and questions below.

My understanding of OF and GTD is that one (1) collects things to be done, (2) plans to do them, and then (3) does them, with OF facilitating key parts of the entire process. But the point of the whole thing lies in the doing. The problem that I've encountered early on, and that leads me to think of using multiple contexts (which led me to this thread), is that I would like to request to-do information from OF in ways that are helpful to me (see next paragraph). Maybe there is a good way to do this that I didn't yet find or figure out. If so, I would very much appreciate any hints.

This weekend I wanted to generate a perspective - or multiple perspectives - of all of things that I needed to do, sorted by context - what phone calls do I need to make, what emails to send, what errands to do, etc. Also, I can easily imagine that I might want a perspective that shows me all of the phone calls that I need to make today for any or all projects that I choose. Or, I might want to generate a perspective that shows me all of the various critical appointments (medical, dental, school, etc.) that are planned for the kids and pets over the next three months. Those things seem to me to indicate multiple contexts and/or some other flexible tagging (keyword) mechanism. Am I missing something that is already there?

I've seen some reference to nesting on this thread. My experience with other information management tasks is that nesting - and having been a long-time DOS-then-Windows user until ~2yrs. ago, I got into that habit - is not a good idea. Before long, it leads to an inefficient amount of time spent managing the information. It seems like the point of the GTD system (and any good database) is to do a small to modest amount of managing information that supports a large amount of accomplishing tasks (that is, finding information in timely and useful ways). The best way to do that in task planning, I suspect, is to have the ability to attach multiple labels of some sort to a task - so that you can retrieve it with a search (perspective) that either singles it out or groups it with a bunch of like tasks - all of the things that I need to do on a certain date or in a defined time period; all of the personal phone calls that I need to make this weekend; all of the errands that I need to do this week; all of the emails that I need to send out for 3 particular projects; etc. If I do a good job of assigning properties - genre (i.e. work, home, kids, volunteer, etc.), project name, context, due dates, other "keywords", etc. - then I should be able to generate the perspectives that help me get my work done efficiently. And, it doesn't seem to me that the properties of a task need to be thought of as being part of a hierarchy - which is the thinking implicit in the nesting idea.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions you might have for me,

Keith

Ken Case

2008-07-21, 01:52 AM

This weekend I wanted to generate a perspective - or multiple perspectives - of all of things that I needed to do, sorted by context - what phone calls do I need to make, what emails to send, what errands to do, etc. Also, I can easily imagine that I might want a perspective that shows me all of the phone calls that I need to make today for any or all projects that I choose. Or, I might want to generate a perspective that shows me all of the various critical appointments (medical, dental, school, etc.) that are planned for the kids and pets over the next three months. Those things seem to me to indicate multiple contexts and/or some other flexible tagging (keyword) mechanism. Am I missing something that is already there?

You've given some wonderful examples of things you can do right now in OmniFocus, by combining the ability to focus on a folder or project (or multiple projects) with the ability to group and select by context.

Projects are groups of related actions that contribute toward a common goal (such as throwing a birthday party or going on a trip); contexts are groups of actions that could be more efficient to do at the same time (such as shopping at the grocery store or ordering from Amazon or writing software). Each action can have a project or a context or both, and projects and contexts can have their own hierarchies that enable you to group and view your actions in many different ways.

Let's look at your specific examples:

This weekend I wanted to generate a perspective - or multiple perspectives - of all of things that I needed to do, sorted by context - what phone calls do I need to make, what emails to send, what errands to do, etc.

That sounds to me exactly like the default view in Context mode. I'd switch to Context mode (using the toolbar item or View menu or Command-2), then select "Revert to Default View" from the View menu. (If that menu item is disabled, it's because I'm already in the default view.) This groups all my actions by context, sorts them within each context by project, and filters the list to only show actions that are currently available.

I can save this view as a perspective, and assign it a keyboard shortcut (such as F1 or Control-1) or put it on the window's toolbar for easy access.

Also, I can easily imagine that I might want a perspective that shows me all of the phone calls that I need to make today for any or all projects that I choose.

I'd switch back to Planning mode (using the toolbar item or View menu or Command-1), select the projects I'm interested in on the sidebar, and click on the Focus button on the toolbar (or select "Focus on…" from the View menu or ). This focuses the current window on just those projects, hiding actions from other projects. Switch back to Context mode, and I'll still see the actions from just those projects, grouped by context. If I want to list just the phone calls, I can click on the Phone context in the sidebar.

(Once again, I can save this as a perspective to make it easy to return to later.)

Or, I might want to generate a perspective that shows me all of the various critical appointments (medical, dental, school, etc.) that are planned for the kids and pets over the next three months.

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here; appointments themselves are actually an example of something that I wouldn't keep in OmniFocus at all. For me, all appointments (that is, things that are scheduled to happen at a particular time and place) live on my calendar (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=39300&postcount=18) rather than in my task list. (Follow the link for more details on how I use my calendar.)

But assuming I have some things to get done for each appointment (such as gathering records or scheduling the appointment in the first place), that sort of implies that each appointment might have its own associated project (such as "Take cat to vet") with a due date of whenever the appointment is. I'd keep those projects together by placing them in a folder (like "Family appointments"), and I could then get a list of just those projects by clicking on that folder in the sidebar. I can then easily group and sort each of those projects by their project's due date using the View menu or the View Bar. Or I can focus on the folder and switch over to context mode to see each action grouped by its corresponding context (such as "Find paperwork for my cat's dental history" at "Home").

Hope that helps!

KeithFK

2008-08-04, 08:54 AM

Hi Ken,

Thanks a lot for your detailed and prompt response.

As you suggest, using Focus is probably a big part of me being able to create the kinds of perspective views that I'd like, and I'm getting a little bit better at it as I go. However, it seems to me that I can't get a list of just the phone calls that are due today or tomorrow - all of the other actions in the projects that contain the due items are also appearing. Is there something that I can do so that I only see the items that are due soon? Also, I have a suggestion: It would be nice to have a little bit more flexibility in the "due soon" choice; possibly adding a between dates option. In that way, if I know that I'm going to take a 3-week vacation next month, I could take a look at all of the things that I have listed as due during that time period - so that I can reassign as needed.

The program seems terrific, though. I'm very new to GTD, but I think it and OmniFocus, together, are going to be very helpful.

Thanks again,

Keith

whpalmer4

2008-08-04, 11:11 AM

To get a list of all calls due today and tomorrow:

Go to context mode. Select your calls context in the sidebar. Group by due. Sort by whatever you please. Remaining or Available. Any duration. Any flag state. Close the groups for anything but due today or due tomorrow. Example attached.

The "trick" if you will to many of these things is to look in context mode rather than project/planning mode.

Ken Case

2008-08-05, 12:29 PM

To get a list of all calls due today and tomorrow:

Go to context mode. Select your calls context in the sidebar. Group by due. Sort by whatever you please. Remaining or Available. Any duration. Any flag state.

One minor suggestion: rather than "Remaining" or "Available", choose "Due Soon", so OmniFocus will only list the calls due in the next few days. (You can choose precisely how many days you want to see by changing the "Due Soon" popup in Data Preferences.)

Gardener

2008-08-05, 08:40 PM

I wanted to propose another situation where multiple, non-hierarchical, OR contexts would be useful. It's very similar to the "shopping" scenario, but it's not shopping. It's essentially a research task.

Let's say that I have:

Project: Choose plants for the experimental low-water bed.
Next Task: Get a real-world look at Shasta Daisy "Becky".

Let's say that I know that "Becky" can be seen at:
- The city park.
- Jane's garden.
- Grafton Nursery Display Beds

Each of these sites is sufficient. Each is equal. There is nothing to make one preferable to the others. As far as I can tell, there _is_ no single best context here. And the contexts are not in any way hierarchical.

But so far, for this one task, I can solve the problem by simplifying - I can just put the task in Errands, and scan Errands everywhere I go, and be reminded to go look at "Becky".

However, let's say that I want to look at real-world examples of sixty-seven other plants. Or eight-four. Or three hundred.

And let's say that I already called around, got plant lists, got brochures, checked web sites, to find out where those plants can be seen. Let's say that I have seventeen locations where I can look at plants, each of which has a varying number of of these plants on display, with lots of duplication. I want to put this information in OmniFocus, sync it to my phone and, whenever I'm at one of these locations, get a look at the plants available at the location, so that I can photograph them and take notes.

In this case, I want lists for each location, and I want to build these lists with multiple contexts, one context for each location. Checking off a plant in any context should check it off altogether. I don't see any graceful way to handle this other than multiple "OR" contexts, or using another tool entirely.

When I go to the city park, for example, I don't want to look through all sixty-seven (or three hundred) plants in one "Plant Viewing" context and check the task detail below them to see if that plant should be at the city park. I already did that work, and I don't want to do it again. By the time I get to the city park, I should be done fumbling with my lists; I want to be down to glancing at the list, taking photos and scribbling notes, and checking items off.

I could eliminate that problem by duplicating the tasks, so that all three places that are growing "Becky" have "Becky" in their list, for three separate tasks. I don't like that either. I don't want to have to search the checked-off items for places I've already been, or dig through my notebook, to see if Becky was checked off, and i don't want to waste time hunting down Becky two or three times before I remember, in an annoyed and frustrated way, that I have indeed seen Becky. If I only have a dozen plants to look at, it may not be a problem to remember what I've seen, but sixty-seven or three hundred is starting to push memory, and isn't the whole point that I don't have to remember all this stuff myself?

I also don't want to do a bunch of extra pre-work planning, making a battle plan where each plant is listed at only one location. This is because (1) I may not go to the locations in the order that I predict and (2) my information may be out of date and "Becky" may have just been mowed down at the city park, so that I need to look at it when I get to Jane's garden after all. Or, even worse, I skipped it at Jane's garden because it wasn't on that list in the battle plan, so that when I find it's been mowed down at City Park, I have to go back to Jane's.

I could just have one task called "Look at plants" and store the individual tasks outside Omnifocus altogether. I don't like that either - I've just essentially made a project into a single task, and totally eliminated the value of contexts, plus I now have to get another tool to sync politely to my phone. For now, yes, I could have a task for the City Park context that says, "Check the SomeOtherSoftwarePackage list of plants for City Park", but I'd rather do it all on one tool.

This is essentially the "shopping" task all over again, but I think that there may be _many_ "shopping"-like tasks - shopping, research on things that might be available at many locations (like the above), activities available at many locations (going to movies is a simplistic case that could admittedly just stay in Errands), and so on.

Anytime that you have the situation where there are several functional instances of a resource, but not _so_ many instances that you can count on finding that resource absolutely anywhere, there's a possibility that multiple OR contexts may be useful. Bird watching. Research in rare books. Viewing rare but multi-instance art, like prints. Purchasing niche products. All of these examples are strongly location-based, but I'd bet that there are other context types that would apply, if I could just think of them. :)

This type of project may be rare enough to keep multiple contexts from floating to the top of the priority list for features, but I think that they exist, they're legitimate, and multiple OR contexts would be genuinely useful for them.

Gardener

Freid

2008-08-05, 10:07 PM

Hi guys,

I won't debate no time, i got things to be done ;) (plus i have no brain).

But : I would enjoy multiple tags or context or whatever you call it. Make it (pleeease) a choice for the user & voila :)

And please forgive my crummy english, i'm just a frenchman.

Liquid Engineer

2008-08-13, 01:58 PM

I just started using OmniFocus, and I love it. That said, I've never read a single thing about GTD, but I've used TaskPaper for several months before deciding I needed something with a bit more muscle to manage university assignments/other tasks.

Many people have made excellent points in regards to why multiple contexts can make you more efficient, and I happen to agree with them that it should be a supported feature. But my reasons for wanting it implemented are a bit more pragmatic.

I've come to the conclusion OmniFocus needs multiple contexts, if for no other reason than that iCal syncing is apparently dependent on context to figure out what goes in which calendar.

I've got a calendar for Law School Assignments and a calendar for Law School Events (meetings, etc.). In OF, I've got a Folder for my Law School related projects. I've also got projects and tasks outside that folder that have nothing to do with Law School. I find it very intuitive to set a context for an action (e.g.: "email," "website," etc.). However, I also need to be able to indicate a context for which iCal calendar this action belongs to (possible calendars: Law School, Law School Events, Personal, Medical, etc.). I can't simply tell it to throw all my email-context actions into my Law School calendar, for instance. Duplicating contexts hierarchically is also a terrible idea.

Either the way things are synced to iCal needs to change, and I'm not really sure how it could, because in theory the context-to-calendar idea is very efficient, or at the very least OF needs to support a minimum of two contexts, with the second being used to indicate a calendar. So you might have a task that has the primary context "email" and the secondary context "Legal Writing." The user can then use the iCal pref pane to tell OF that Legal Writing context actions go into a specific specified calendar.

brianogilvie

2008-08-13, 02:12 PM

Liquid Engineer

2008-08-13, 03:27 PM

Could you explain how you then use the iCal data once it's synced? Are you then syncing with a smartphone or Palm? What usage scenario do you imagine--do you want all your law-school-related email actions in your Law School calendar, and other email actions in another calendar (or calendars)?

What I'd like to do is sync the actions from OF so that they show up as ToDos in the appropriate iCal calendar. Then I'd be able to see my ToDos/Actions from MobileMe by viewing my online calendar when I'm away from my computer, and be able to use iCal's alarm features, which are more robust than OF's, where appropriate.

I'd also be able to print calendar views from iCal that included the relevant tasks for that time period.

I suppose I'm trying to use OF as a replacement for iCal's barebones ToDo support, which I've never really been able to get much use out of. I spend a lot of time looking at my iCal calendar, so it'd be nice to be able to have a current list of actions/todos in the same window, at least for reference. I would not, of course, want to use iCal to attempt to manage the ToDos.

When I was syncing to my Palm, I created entirely new calendars for my contexts, with similar names (though I sometimes synced several contexts to the same calendar if it made sense). I couldn't focus that way on a particular project or area of responsibility, but I synced project names with the actions, so I could skim over my context list (calendar) and identify the actions as a help to deciding what to do. In other words, I left my existing calendars for events, divided by area of responsibility, and used the new calendars for tasks, divided by context.

This is an interesting approach, but given my existing calendar setup it's a bit overkill. I have one calendar already for class scheduling and assignments, and another for ... everything else. I've also got calendars for Medical, Personal, and Other appointments/events. Creating a calendar for every possible context would overclutter things, I think.

I certainly don't need syncing. I'm already very happy with OF. I just discovered the option while going through the preferences and thought "this could be cool and potentially useful," and was a bit wierded out when I realized I couldn't do it the way I wanted to. I brought it up in this discussion because IMHO it presents a scenario where multiple contexts (or at least two) would be very useful that I didn't see any other proponents of multiple contexts bring up.

On the subject of multiple contexts in general, I've yet to use OF long enough to decide if I will find the restriction to one context problematic. I've used TaskPaper for a while, and you can give an action in that program as many contexts as you want. My general usage in that program was along the lines of: This is a task I must do. @this-is-what-I-need-to-do-the-task @this-is-why-I'm-doing-it (e.g.: school, work, etc.).

So I'd have things along the lines of: Contact university bursar @email @school @financial

I can't recall a single instance of going beyond three contexts (aside from the automatic @done context TP stuck on completed actions), and usually never went beyond two. @finance was the major exception, as I generally wanted to note what said expenditure had to do with, and it can be useful to see a list of all the transactions regarding money you have pending with one click.

dondo

2008-08-13, 05:26 PM

curt [he says meekly] - I have a "shopping" context. I select both it and "errands" when I'm getting ready to head out the door, and depending on what I'm doing I may select it when I'm at my desk to do the online stuff.

whpalmer4

2008-08-15, 07:38 AM

What I'd like to do is sync the actions from OF so that they show up as ToDos in the appropriate iCal calendar. Then I'd be able to see my ToDos/Actions from MobileMe by viewing my online calendar when I'm away from my computer, and be able to use iCal's alarm features, which are more robust than OF's, where appropriate.

But is there any useful alarm support in MobileMe for To Do list items? That's all that OmniFocus supports with the iCal sync support. I don't see any To Do support in MobileMe, just in iCal.

brianogilvie

2008-08-15, 08:06 AM

But is there any useful alarm support in MobileMe for To Do list items? That's all that OmniFocus supports with the iCal sync support. I don't see any To Do support in MobileMe, just in iCal.

I don't think there is any alarm support for To Do items, either in iCal or MobileMe. You can get the list of To Do items in MobileMe, in the Calendar module, by using the gear menu.

whpalmer4

2008-08-15, 09:33 AM

I don't think there is any alarm support for To Do items, either in iCal or MobileMe. You can get the list of To Do items in MobileMe, in the Calendar module, by using the gear menu.

There is alarm support in iCal. If you check the "due date" box for a To Do item, then you'll be given the opportunity to set up a notification. Viewing the website, I haven't noticed any notification attempts with the test cases I've set up for both To Do and event entries. Inspecting the To Do entry on MobileMe, I don't even see provisions for an alarm.

I did miss the To Do stuff under the gear menu, thanks for pointing that out. I was a bit surprised that Apple seemingly hadn't provided that, as half-hearted as it is...I was concerned that LiquidEngineer was planning to use something that wasn't there, but I'm happy to be wrong about its absence! Rereading LE's post, it appears that no new information was imparted by our subsequent discussion, although we apparently each learned something :-)

brianogilvie

2008-08-15, 11:36 AM

There is alarm support in iCal. If you check the "due date" box for a To Do item, then you'll be given the opportunity to set up a notification.

Thanks for pointing that out! I tried it just before making my last post, and I could have sworn that no notification option appeared, but I just tried again and it did. My mistake. Or perhaps a bug, since I have restarted my computer in between.

EricW

2008-08-17, 09:00 PM

Pardon if this is off topic and feel free to suggest I boot it to another thread.
Some of the discussion here is around similar issues I'm having in refining GTD, reconciling it with Covey style structured time and getting clear about contexts as opposed to the tools I use in contexts such email. The classic @email is actually not working because its for me it's for a tool.

Question is What to define as contexts in Omnifocus so that I can see and action them in iCal as Calendars or Calendar Groups.

Physical Contexts: Places I work
Office
Home
Home Office
Out

Tools/Things I do: These are action types not contexts and go in the Action Name
Calls/Phone
Email
Writing
Research
Reading
Meeting

Routines: The first two below are planning ideals. How I choose to structure time. The second two are sort of regular projects that generate activities. Probably best as Omnifocus folders.
Standard Day
Standard Week
Standard Month
Standing Commitments

Types of Activity: Categories of Projects to keep in balance. Question is are they Contexts or Project Groups
Strategic Projects
Improvement//Development Projects
Operational Routines
Maintenance Routines
Communications doesn't quite fit. Responding to communication and communicating are perhaps part of each of the other four above.

Musings
The cascading order of deciding on the next thing I do is:
Where am I. Context
What are the activities needed to progress to due dates.
What types of activity do I need to be working on to maintain the balance of the categories.

It's the last question that is perplexing. Are types of activity contexts and how do get them where I can narrow the focus in iCal.

Any suggestions ?

Lizard

2008-08-18, 10:06 AM

Those routines could be projects or contexts, perhaps. If "Maintenance Routines" is a fixed list of tasks that doesn't vary from one maintenance cycle to the next, it should probably be a repeating project. If "Maintenance Routines" means "once in a while we shut down the machinery and do all the fix-up it needs" then maybe it's a context, especially if you say things like "Next time we do maintenance, we should recalibrate the framistan."

EricW

2008-08-19, 05:13 AM

Hi Lizard
Thanks for chiming in. How did you know we run a framistan kerflurgarator !
Had a chat with a friend this morning who has made dot project into what he wants.
Thinking about the business and the standard day we concluded for him that time allocated to Customer Contact or Web dev etc were not unlike contexts. eg now I have my Web Dev hat on I'm in this mental space which is a context but also a block of time in the day.
So its sort of coming down to blocks of time for Strategic Activity, Development Activity, Improvement, at the Office are three contexts.
Likewise time devoted to Maintenance might be recurrent running of updaters, major clean ups but also maintenance of relationships without a particular instrumental outcome.
So if I want to make sure I'm devoting some time to that I need it as a context too I think.
Home Office - Work Offices raises its head very much in tune with this thread. There are some things I can only do at home say where the development machines are and some at either. Duplicate Activities at the cost of some redundancy would have to be the way to go to have them appear in both contexts.
Two questions then.
Does OF provide for recurrent Projects ? (I can probably look this up)
Second question:
I have another thread with no response on Changing Contexts.
So far I think its a process of:
Change the names in OF
Check there's no orphaned tasks
Change the names in iCal (and on the Treo)
Realign the correspondences in the Sync prefs
Sync and hope for the best
Any gotchyas you can see in this ?

Lizard

2008-08-19, 09:22 AM

Yes, you can create repeating projects. They can repeat based on when you did them last, or on a fixed schedule.

I really don't know the iCal syncing well enough to comment on that one. (I actually saw the other thread and shied away from it.) Perhaps email omnifocus@omnigroup.com to get a response from our knowledgeable ninjas.

algol

2008-09-04, 02:35 PM

Gardener

2008-09-04, 03:06 PM

Do you have any interest in providing examples? As a relatively new user of Omnifocus, I'd like multiple contexts, but so far I'm living OK without them. So I'm curious in both directions: (1) whether it might be possible for Omnifocus to work for your data anyway somehow and (2) the details of another case of needing multiple contexts.

Gardener

Toadling

2008-09-04, 04:03 PM

Yeah, Gardener posts some good questions. Without some examples, it's pretty hard to make any suggestions.

Also note that Omni Group has stated that a future version of OmniFocus will include optional metadata columns that can be used for a variety of things, that presumably includes tagging or multiple contexts.

So if you can find some way to get along without multiple contexts now, it may payoff in the long run.

As an aside, I used to think I needed multiple contexts, but the more I used the current system, the more I realized it wasn't really necessary for me. In fact, I've come to appreciate simplicity of a single context, both in adding new items and in trying to find and work with them later. Of course, your situation may differ.

-Dennis

Young Daniel

2008-09-05, 05:44 PM

Just thought I'd chime into the discussion. MY opinion on multiple contexts has changed since getting omnifocus on my iphone. When I go grocery shopping, I would like tasks for "convenience store" included in my "grocery store" context. However, if I am only at CVS I do not want my entire grocery list showing, only my "convenience store" tasks.

The work around I have is to use both contexts when I'm grocery shopping, which is less efficiant then having a "convenience store OR grocery store" label for context that lists that task in both locations.

jdh

2008-09-06, 05:48 AM

I use parent and sub-contexts for this to some degree....

I have an "Errands" context that contains contexts for Grocery Store, Pharmacy, etc. Most things I tend to buy in only one generic place (I don't necessarily label my Grocery Store as a specific grocery store, but rather just any Grocery Store I happen to be at).

Items that can be done anywhere, or in more than one place, go into the parent context ("Errands"), while items that are more location-specific land in their appropriate sub-context.

As an aside, I find getting too store-specific creates more confusion than it solves.... If I can't find something I want at the grocery store I'm at, it's no harm to just leave it unchecked until my next grocery trip. Ergo, things like "Grocery Store" and "Convenience Store" would likely all fall into "Grocery Store" in my world. On the other hand, tasks like "Buy Milk" (ie, routine staples) tend to go into the "Errands" context so they're combined with my general errands and not just store-specific trips (in other words, I may need to stop off somewhere and buy milk when running other errands, but not necessarily specifically going to the Grocery Store).

In OF on the desktop, I simply select the "Errands" context and I see everything in the sub-contexts right htere. I can group by context if I want to separate them out logically, but they're still shown on the same listing.

When viewing this on the iPhone, I can easily move up and down, rather than laterally, to see those things that are sub-context specific as opposed to more generic. It saves a step, and of course you can still see the subcontexts listed from the parent context with the number of available items shown in each.

If you had a lot of different grocery/food stores that you bought specific items at, then you could just nest one level deeper: Grocery Stores could have additional sub-contexts for store-specific items.

I do similar things with my Calls contexts (sub-contexts for business and personal), and some of my "Household" tasks as well (based on location or situation within the house).

While not ideal compared to multiple contexts, it's not an unreasonable workaround.

Christopher

2008-09-06, 08:29 AM

Guys,

I've just installed OF. It was love at first sight. Just what I needed (and looked for) for organizing my PhD thesis work.

But... After the "second sight", honestly, beeing unable to assign to multiple contexts makes virtually impossible to organize my work - there are really lots of things and ideas to develop that really are in multiple contexts.

And this is it... I am not buying OF, only - and really only - because I will be unable to assign to multiple contexts.

I really hope this will change in a next version!

Alberto.

Perhaps rethinking what your contexts are might help. For example, if you want to research something, and that research can be done at the library, at home, or wherever you have a computer, then make a context "research" and use Perspectives to filter.

Young Daniel

2008-09-07, 08:53 AM

I had solved my problem of multiple contexts using perspectives...but because there are no perspectives in the iphone app, I thought multiple contexts would be the solution. Would the better solution be to incorporate perspectives on the iphone as oppose to the multiple contexts approach?

joelande

2008-09-08, 08:25 AM

Perhaps rethinking what your contexts are might help.

Perhaps giving multiple contexts to those of us who want them might help.

steven

2008-09-13, 08:17 PM

Perhaps giving multiple contexts to those of us who want them might help.

I am SERIOUSLY, mang.

I can always count on popping by this thread once a month to see:

1. request for additional descriptor fields

2. response that original poster is somehow "doing it wrong"

3. someone (occasionally me :-D ) chiming in with a frustrated "hey, there are legit arguments for adding additional fields"

4. response by devs saying "hey, chill, we TOLD you guys it's coming in a later version"

5. GOTO STEP 1

Note: this is posted in good humor. omnifocus is transcendentally utile for me - totally love it - but it continues to need this ability: Create a task tagged somehow with "web" and "research", or "Joe Smith" and "phone call". (no "comments" field work-arounds allowed!)

anyway, god bless us all! (and how future-amazing is OF iphone + OF leopard? sickly!)

CorgiGirl

2008-09-17, 11:05 PM

Great assessment!

There is a very strange intolerance on this board to how GTD should be used by each and every person. The main point behind GTD is to NOT spend time belaboring how to GTD. It is simply about getting more done – and in the way that works best for you. Most people think and learn differently. Some learn by reading. Some learn better by a visual interpretation. Some learn better by hearing, some by doing. Does this mean suddenly everyone sheds their own inherent learning and thinking patterns just because they are using OF? Of course not, OF is only a tool, and should allow for the flexibility for each person to customize their own experience to be the most productive for themselves.

In the boards overall, I see many legitimate software issues, sometimes even bugs, posted, which then are addressed by other members as "errors in thinking," or "well that slight variation in thinking means you are not a true GTD follower." It's actually crazy and frankly really irritating. But hey, that's my opinion.

So on that note, I too, vote for multiple contexts –*plus the ability not to use them for the folks who work better in single-context mode.

Christopher

2008-09-18, 04:18 AM

I am SERIOUSLY, mang.

I can always count on popping by this thread once a month to see:

1. request for additional descriptor fields

2. response that original poster is somehow "doing it wrong"

3. someone (occasionally me :-D ) chiming in with a frustrated "hey, there are legit arguments for adding additional fields"

4. response by devs saying "hey, chill, we TOLD you guys it's coming in a later version"

5. GOTO STEP 1

Note: this is posted in good humor. omnifocus is transcendentally utile for me - totally love it - but it continues to need this ability: Create a task tagged somehow with "web" and "research", or "Joe Smith" and "phone call". (no "comments" field work-arounds allowed!)

anyway, god bless us all! (and how future-amazing is OF iphone + OF leopard? sickly!)

Did I suddenly get very old, or is he talking in his own language? :)

steven

2008-09-19, 05:53 PM

Did I suddenly get very old, or is he talking in his own language? :)

Are those the only two options?

Not my own language; just casual slang:

1. "I am SERIOUSLY" - South Park (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1651341_1659196_1652729,00.html)'s rapscallion Eric Cartman (http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Eric_Theodore_Cartman). (used since season 6 in 2002)

2. mang (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mang) - a long-time term of familiarity, derived from the latino pronunciation of "man"; popularity bump from 1983's movie "Scarface".

3. "chiming in (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chime%20in)" - now here, you see, I wasn't actually referring to emitting a bell-like sound. I was referring to "breaking suddenly and unwelcomely into a conversation to express agreement or voice an opinion."

4. "hey, chill (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chill)" - to calm down; relax.

5. GOTO (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goto)

6. future-amazing - okay, I did make this up, but it's just a hyphen.

7. "sickly!" - a derivation of "sick", which came from the 30 year-old "ill". These all probably came from the root slang concept of "bad meaning good".

I'm not really in any particular "jargon club"; that's just how I (textually) express myself. I can also write quite dryly, as you no doubt realize if you've stayed awake to the end of this post.

also: more optional omnifocus fields!

Toadling

2008-09-19, 09:42 PM

Not my own language; just casual slang...

All I can say is: wow, you really know your slang. Nice bit of follow-up research there. :-)

-Dennis

bnz

2008-09-20, 12:22 AM

I would like to present a scenario that happend to me yesterday. I am pretty new to GTD and while i have the book, actually reading it is still on my todo list ;-) I hope that the single context people could tell me what i was doing wrong. The place where i work has moved to a new building this week (it is Saturday when you read this). On monday, i need a certain room to be ready, but there are no chairs in it yet. On thursday, i accidentally found out the person, lets call him Paul, who was responsible for making a call to make it happen. In my todo list, i associated an action "Check that the new room is ready" with the new building as context. When i actually checked it, i added a note to this action that the chairs are still missing. Friday morning, i asked Paul again whether he knows something new about the missing chairs and he said that he forgot to make the call - i did that without looking it up in Omnifocus. Friday evening, he came by the office to say goodbye. I knew there was something i still wanted from him and told him to wait for a second, because i wanted to check in Omnifocus what it is. However, i wasn't able to find what it is, because there were still too many items on that list and the existing action context was associated to the building rather than the person. Therefore, i didn't ask him about the chairs. Now, i would think that the easiest way to have this issue fixed would have been to just add a second context "Paul" to this item. I could imagine that i could have added a second action "Ask Paul for the chairs" and have associated it with "Paul" as context - would this be more appropriate? Or how would you have solved this scenario?

Gardener

2008-09-20, 01:06 AM

Yep, I would have created a separate action for asking Paul about the chairs, and made Paul the context. I'd say that checking the room is an action, and any "findings" from that check would produce new actions. To me, the building context for the chair action is inappropriate, because you can't get this task done by being in the building - you have to get it done through Paul, therefore I'd say that Paul is the appropriate context.

I'm still in favor of multiple contexts, but even if I had multiple contexts, I would have broken out a separate chair action in your example.

Gardener

bnz

2008-09-20, 01:14 AM

Thanks, i imagined that was the point. But actually, i could not have made Paul the context of the "check room" action as the intent was actually going to the room physically and checking whether it is ready. Also at the time i created the action, i didn't know that Paul was responsible for the chairs. But it makes sense in general, just adding the note to the first action didn't solve any problem. I think in my first week Omnifocus, i made the mistake of simply leaving actions open and annotating them when something was missing rather than closing them and creating a new more concrete action. Adding other contexts probably would have been a fix for a broken way to handle the actions.

Gardener

2008-09-20, 10:18 AM

Right - I realize that the original context for Check Room was correct. The problem came when an associated action needed another context.

I tend to create a whole lot of fine-grained actions, and to create tiny projects at the drop of a hat. So once I discovered that "check room" wasn't going to be a single-action thing, I might have even created a miniscule project:

- Get room ready for Monday (Context Building)
-- Talk to Paul about chairs for room. (Context Paul)
-- Follow up with Paul about chairs. (Context Paul)
-- Recheck room. (Context Building)

If there were more than one thing to do about the room ("Put fresh batteries in room remote." "Speak to Facilities about vacuuming room.") I'd definitely make it a project. At this point, this is what I'd do, not necessarily what I argue that you should do.

However, getting back to multiple contexts, I'd _like_ to have the option of making those two "context Paul" actions also "context Email" so that they pop up whether I'm looking at Paul actions or Email actions.

Gardener

mseibert

2008-09-21, 03:39 AM

I would think, that "tagging" could solve a lot of the problems described above. I hope, that this will be implemented sometime in the future.

CorgiGirl

2008-09-23, 05:18 AM

I think tagging would work for me as well. Add in my vote :)

steven

2008-09-24, 05:58 AM

by the way...

Our plan all along (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=13360&postcount=51) has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.1 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.2.

joelande

2008-09-24, 06:18 AM

I hope this isn't presented as some separate field or column that is separate or disjointed from the existing context system.

I want the behavior and interface to be a more integrated support for multiple contexts.

CorgiGirl

2008-09-24, 11:21 AM

I will put this under my pillow and hope it comes true :)

pendolino

2008-09-28, 11:36 PM

tagging sounds right but its all in the implementation.

Nicolas_Thomsen

2009-01-23, 12:03 AM

I am quite new to GTD systems so bear with me if this is newbie talk :)
I have been through Things and RTM and both of them use these 3 sections, Lists/Projects, Areas and tags and I really found both confusing. It seemed like it was over the top, too many things to look it. I really like the projects & context way, it seems like the perfect balance between efficiency and ease of use. I got a bit confused when I had to deal with three factors and I never really understood the need for all 3. I see that some people say that they might want to compensate for the lack of several contexts with tags. If they want to ex."call Michael about meeting next monday" they want to add it to @phone and @Michael, but I think that I would find it really annoying to check several contexts og tagd while I was doing something in case of some actions overlapping.

Of course if the brilliant people from OG can implement tags so that it won´t be cluttering or confusing, or even better invisible for the people who don´t want to use tags, then I have no problem with it.

joelande

2009-01-23, 05:37 AM

but I think that I would find it really annoying to check several contexts og tagd while I was doing something in case of some actions overlapping.
Its not about *checking* several contexts, it's about:
- not *missing* an action, because you had the wrong context selected
- and being able to create more useful, flexible selections/views of the data on the fly (that may require less thinking)

<ps I am not saying that there is potential for tagging to also have faults/problems of its own, either>

Nicolas_Thomsen

2009-01-23, 06:16 AM

Its not about *checking* several contexts, it's about:
- not *missing* an action, because you had the wrong context selected
- and being able to create more useful, flexible selections/views of the data on the fly (that may require less thinking)

<ps I am not saying that there is potential for tagging to also have faults/problems of its own, either>

But how would you implement this, so that you would be sure to see all the relevant context at that specific moment?

joelande

2009-01-23, 10:19 AM

But how would you implement this, so that you would be sure to see all the relevant context at that specific moment?
I am not sure what you are asking -

Maybe you are talking about the view in Project Mode, where currently see a single context in the column?

I guess it depends on how OG would implement this, and if we are talking about adding a multiple contexts feature, or using tags for that purpose...

But there are lots of different ways it could be done.

One example would be the column would show the first (main) entry, perhaps with a number in parenthesis indicating how many other contexts/tags are entered, and hovering over the field would reveal all of the other entries.

There are many applications out there that implement tagging in many innovative ways, and OF is pretty good at coming up with good UI.

If you are talking about the view in Context Mode, again it depends on if this is implemented through multiple contexts or tags.

If multiple contexts are used, I kind of think the question is irrelevant, as any selected contexts are visible in the sidebar.

The one question I think in Context mode if multiple contexts are used, is if a single action woudl be visible more than once on the screen. Perhaps a preference can control this behavior.

If tags are used, I am not sure if the information is important at in Context Mode, other than perhaps available in an inspector or popup.

m.wrenn

2009-02-06, 07:40 AM

I tried this out, and though it's a little slow, it's fairly flexible and serves as a good half measure for tagging in OmniFocus as it is . . . and it uses onboard functionality.

The key is using uncommon symbols or symbol combinations, OF search and Perspectives. This is really pretty smooth.

Say I have several franchises running at the same time. They each have rather different projects, each one running along at a different pace. Some of these projects are getting ready to ramp up for production, so in the related task or project notes field I put a "$" sign. Makes sense, it's a project ramping up for production, so it needs money. I know I will have to call the bank and maybe my key investor sometime soon, and I need to know some total numbers across each of these productions.

I do a search on "$" in the search field. Everything with "$" floats up, I move to the menu bar and save the search as a Perspective.

Now, I am not exactly sure how this works, but it seems OF saves the actual search as the Perspective. This is great! It means that adding or subtracting "$" anywhere in a task or project's field affects whether is shows up next time you call up that Perspective. One project had to be pulled off the slate? No problem, delete it's "$". It won't show up next time you call that Perspective.

You need a good and consistent system for labeling projects and tasks this way. A little patience will be necessary, too, because the Perspective apparently carries out a fresh search each time you call it up (I guess . . . totally end user conjecture). Except for the slowness, I would be tempted to say there is no real need for a specific Tag feature.

If you don't like seeing strange marks floating in your title bars, put them in the note field. It still works just fine.

. . . If somebody mentioned this before, my apologies. After some looking around, I didn't notice this solution, so posted it.

Rauchbier

2009-02-06, 08:21 AM

You need a good and consistent system for labeling projects and tasks this way.

That's the point for using tags: If you have a defined set of tags you won't have any problems with spellings errors while searching.

You could even have nested tags and if you search for the parent you could find all the children.

And you get the bonus of being able to rename a tag and it is renamed everywhere it is used if tags are properly implemented.

m.wrenn

2009-02-06, 04:20 PM

I don't quite follow your point about nested tags. Could you explain a little more, please?

As I mentioned, the system is not perfect. However, it is a good half measure to keep us happy until this feature is added.

On the spelling issue, saving the search result as a Perspective prevents you from even having to type in the search field. You just select the Perspective. Also, I have difficulty misspelling "$".

In this proposed work around, the reason for avoiding actual words with real meaning is that those words might appear in a different sentence context. This causes undesirable search results. If you find yourself making a task with something like, "Borrow 5$ from Ed", then a slightly different system would help. For example "A$" as your tag marker.

One critical flaw that makes me still want proper tags is, I don't think you can search on multiple tags with this workaround. Does the OF search function support boolean operations?

paulduv

2009-02-07, 09:21 AM

Multiple contexts would be a big benefit for me. No-one can claim, I don't think, that an action with multiple possible contexts doesn't happen in the real world, so why not have that reflected in OF?

Multiple context would be even more beneficial on OF for iPhone. There's a huge amount of functionality that would be available to me in my usage of OF if it handled multiple contexts. I could get into it, but it's been talked about a lot in this tread. (And isn't the length of this thread a clue to how much people want it?)

Seems like the only areas of argument left, then, are around how confusing this would be, or how difficult it would be to add. The former is an interface issue, is it not, and the latter, well, the OF team doesn't have to do anything! I know I'd be putting it at the bottom of the priority list.

There are, what fourteen pages so far of comments? To the OF team, maybe you could come down on the issue either way? If you say, "Nope, ain't doing it. Increases complexity in the software way too much", or "We've heard the arguments, and we're persuaded that multiple contexts is bad for your GTD health", at least then I could move on to the Acceptance stage! :)

paulduv

2009-02-07, 09:22 AM

Oh. Nineteen pages of discussion. :)

Toadling

2009-02-07, 11:26 AM

To the OF team, maybe you could come down on the issue either way?

I think they have, at least to a certain degree: metadata columns.

http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=38155&postcount=155

-Dennis

paulduv

2009-02-07, 01:44 PM

I think they have, at least to a certain degree: metadata columns.

http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=38155&postcount=155

-Dennis

I would think that's as good a system to accomplish some of the same things as multiple categories.

Ultimately, the main impetus for me is to use OF iPhone for location stuff:

Context for actions:
• buy screws
• buy shelves
• ask about drywall

Isn't "Hardware", it's

• Hardware store 1
• Hardware store 2
• Hardware store 3

That's been totally unnecessary up to now: of course I can just decide to check my hardware location from any of those! But, the location-based functions on the iPhone, which would be so awesome for me if it was useable, can't make that decision.

The "Business Search" doesn't seem to be reliable enough, by the way. If it was, or if I could choose, instead of "Current location", multiple locations, that would work to, while avoiding another layer of multiple locations, or tags...

So yeah... If I could attach locations to tags, that'll be great, but there may be other ways to skin that cat.

Thanks for pointing that out... If tags happen, I bet that'll spawn a lot of interesting tricks!

joelande

2009-02-07, 01:48 PM

Did you know that you can use boolean searches in the location field?

Such as:
"Ace Hardware" OR "L & M Hardware" OR "True Value Hardware"

Rauchbier

2009-02-09, 09:58 AM

I don't quite follow your point about nested tags. Could you explain a little more, please?

Just a sample:

You could have a tag "errands" with sub tags "hardware store" and "grocery store".

You could have a tag "People IT department" with sub tags "Jack" and "Joe".

If I have "Jack" on the phone I just select the "Jack" tag and see all the tasks and projects which are related to him.
If I am in a meeting with the IT department I select the "People IT department" tag and I see all the tasks and projects of interest to all of the people I am meeting, including "Jack" and "Joe".

Why is this not possible with contexts? Because for me a context is a place or a work condition like "office", "home" or "phone". But what about "Jack"? I could meet him in the office or call him on the phone. It does not make sense to me to have different office:Jack and phone:Jack contexts since it often does not matter if I speak to him on the phone or in the office.

Brian

2009-02-09, 02:35 PM

Why is this not possible with contexts? Because for me a context is a place or a work condition like "office", "home" or "phone". But what about "Jack"? I could meet him in the office or call him on the phone. It does not make sense to me to have different office:Jack and phone:Jack contexts since it often does not matter if I speak to him on the phone or in the office.

I wouldn't do it that way, either - 99% of the time, the method I'm using to have the conversation is irrelevant. In the rare cases where there's something that I want to discuss in person, I note that in the action.

My setup works like this: I have an "omni" parent context; one of the subcontexts is 'people', with each of the folks I work with underneath. Ditto for friends and other the other high-level context categories I use.

Tasks relating to a given person get filed to the person's context; I check that context when I'm talking to them regardless of the method I'm using.

My 'phone' context doesn't have any subcontexts - it's only used for calls to relatively anonymous folks, businesses, etcetera. Things I'm extremely unlikely to accomplish in person.

jdh

2009-02-09, 03:10 PM

I do things much the same way... In fact, to take it one step further, I note the individual things I have to talk to a person about in that person's context (under a parent context called "People"). If I need to make an action item to call a person to drive something forward, then that becomes an item in the Calls context.

In other words, my "Calls" context is a list of calls I need to initiate, not merely a list of things I have to talk about when I'm making calls.

I speak with most of the people I work with on a regular enough basis, however, that there's very rarely any need to put an item both under "People" and "Calls"

vballas

2009-02-27, 03:09 AM

Just a sample:

You could have a tag "errands" with sub tags "hardware store" and "grocery store".

You could have a tag "People IT department" with sub tags "Jack" and "Joe".

If I have "Jack" on the phone I just select the "Jack" tag and see all the tasks and projects which are related to him.
If I am in a meeting with the IT department I select the "People IT department" tag and I see all the tasks and projects of interest to all of the people I am meeting, including "Jack" and "Joe".

Why is this not possible with contexts? Because for me a context is a place or a work condition like "office", "home" or "phone". But what about "Jack"? I could meet him in the office or call him on the phone. It does not make sense to me to have different office:Jack and phone:Jack contexts since it often does not matter if I speak to him on the phone or in the office.

I fully agree.
Tags is a missing feature for now and needs to be implemented asap.
Tags could actually work as contexts, while contexts could not work as Tags due to the limitation of 1:1 (1 context for one task).

Another way would be to allow multiple contexts. Then they could be used as tags.

ksrhee

2009-02-27, 03:44 AM

I fully agree.
Tags is a missing feature for now and needs to be implemented asap.
Tags could actually work as contexts, while contexts could not work as Tags due to the limitation of 1:1 (1 context for one task).

Another way would be to allow multiple contexts. Then they could be used as tags.

I believe people find tags useful; so, I'm not downplaying the importance, but in my own experience, the need for tags or multiple contexts seems a bit overblown.

I really think if you are careful about what you are doing, you could find one context to assign. Let's take an example mentioned often about Jack and phone call. Yes, you could put the item in both Jack and phone call, but if I really think about this, I should be putting it in under Jack since w/o Jack, the task will not take place. So, it's not a random phone call, but a call to a specific person. Now some of you might say what if it involves multiple people. I then would ask who is the key person in the topic (let's say Jack), and I would put it there since once again, w/o Jack, it doesn't happen. Also, OF allows you to select multiple contexts, I could easily select Jack, Mary, and Tracey, and if multiple tasks are assigned to each one, they would all show up. If there is a task that must need Tracey present, this covers it, etc. etc.

Also, we shouldn't use contexts so literally. I use contexts for multiple areas such as people, life areas, places, etc.

So, between contexts and flags and now the view due or flag, I don't really miss anything when it comes to getting things done.

YMMV.

sirvivian

2009-03-02, 02:23 AM

My 'phone' context doesn't have any subcontexts - it's only used for calls to relatively anonymous folks, businesses, etcetera. Things I'm extremely unlikely to accomplish in person.
@Brian thanks for clearing this up. This has been a sticking point for me in my GTD setup. I have long called for the ability to assign tags and multiple contexts in OF, but now I see it's just my understanding of the program and concepts of GTD that needed to change.

scottstephens84

2009-03-10, 12:35 PM

@Brian thanks for clearing this up. This has been a sticking point for me in my GTD setup. I have long called for the ability to assign tags and multiple contexts in OF, but now I see it's just my understanding of the program and concepts of GTD that needed to change.

sirvivian: (et al) This issue isn't so much between whether OF should have multiple contexts per Action as it is whether OF should offer the ability to Tag an Action to begin with. People are confusing the two concepts. Contexts are NOT Tags! Contexts are meant to provide the user the ability to identify the "context" of how to complete an Action. Tags, on the other hand, are meant to do nothing more than categorize an Action. I'm fine with not being able to assign multiple Contexts to an Action. What I'm not fine with is not having any ability to Tag an item, let alone assign multiple Tags, which I should be able to do as well.

In this regard I almost look at "Projects" as being a Tag with more functionality (Parallel vs Sequential). In reality a Project is simply a way to categorize a bunch of Actions with the difference being to drive to an ultimate goal (completing the Project). Tags categorize Actions too but don't necessarily have an ultimate goal or a need to be setup in a hierarchy.

Since I'm in my trial period still until OF offers this capability my $80 is staying in my pocket.

rediguana

2009-04-23, 10:12 PM

Let me preface this by saying I haven't gone back and read the whole thread - too many pages :)

I've just been playing, and I think I've found a workaround, that does enough of what I need to do to achieve something similar to multiple contexts.

1. I added multiple tags to the notes field such as @something @somethingelse @somethingelseentirely - these represent the various resources I need to complete an action.

2. I use the search box to filter on the situations where I need multiple resources e.g. say I want to filter for all tasks that require @something, and all tasks that require using @somethingelse, then I just search for '@something @somethingelse' and lo and behold, only those tasks with those two tags in the notes come up.

What I need to figure out now is where I draw the line with the OF contexts, and those in my notes. But for the time being, this is a suitable workaround for me.

omniinmo

2009-07-30, 11:34 AM

I'm new to OF and the software proved to be very powerful and flexible but faceted classification is very simply a must in the digital world when knowledge is to be organized properly in relation with the particular way people think about their organized information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification

The reason why faceted classification is so convenient is because it aligns very strongly with how human beings think about and organize information.

As somebody already mentioned, and in a strict faceted sense, disjointed contexts are a real problem and are cleanly addressed under the canonical faceted model (but will cause problems in OF because of a lack of an implementation of the faceted model) but overlapping facets are also extremely convenient from a human standpoint.

An example would be:

walk fido at park - Dog, Fido, Park, Exercise.

Taken in isolation, those contexts (Dog, Fido, Park, Exercise) might not actually yield the required preconditions for me to be able to walk my dog at the park.

For example if I so happen to drive by the "Park" and the Park context pops up my "walk the dog at park" action item, it is completely useless if I my dog is at home. It's a reminder I can't currently accomplish.

Or if decide to go for a workout at the gym and Exercise pops "walk the dog at park", I'm absolutely not interested in walking my dog at the park. It again acts as a reminder I can't currently accomplish.

Those are all overlapping contexts/facets I might be interested in being able to tag/filter against (I don't actually have a dog to walk but the point is the same nonetheless) :-P). This added capability would absolutely not hinder the use of single contexts for single context/facet proponents but it would add significant power to the currently implemented single facet model under OF.

It creates an interesting paradigm shift though. Instead of working with hierarchies of organized tasks in relation to a single context, the hierarchical organization is somewhat flatter, making way for on the fly faceted meta data searches based on multiple contexts. I think that both can coexist in harmony :).

Situations can always be described in either strict hierarchical terms via static nested single facet/contexts (as we are more familiar with when working with folders, for example, under multiple OSes) but it is also possible, and sometimes very desirable, to use multiple facets (that may even be considered to reside on different semantic levels in more traditional knowledge hierarchies. Think of google searches) to corner just the right context*s* relevant to perform a given task.

I think that faceted classification, for serious knowledge organization and to prevent triggering against insufficient overall context, is unavoidable.

Or put differently, a single context is insufficient to describe accurately our multi contextual (multi faceted) reality.

omniinmo

CatOne

2009-07-30, 02:16 PM

Iomniimno,

I believe you're mostly suggesting tags.

But your example is really farcical; "walk fido at park" is really a task you can do at home. The task itself is to TAKE the dog to the park and to exercise him. An example of "Hey, I'm at the park, what can I do here? Walk the dog? DANG... no dog" is pretty laughable. One would hope humans would have a little more ability than that.

"Darn, I have to crap, but I'm not on the toilet... WHAT DO I DO?!"

:-P

omniinmo

2009-07-30, 03:52 PM

Iomniimno,

I believe you're mostly suggesting tags.

Nope, I'm suggesting multiple contexts per task.

But your example is really farcical; "walk fido at park" is really a task you can do at home.

True but, interrestingly, completely beside the point :)

The task itself is to TAKE the dog to the park and to exercise him.

Sure! For the sake of discussion, lets say that my task description is ridiculous and that yours is perfectly accurate and proper (and for the sake of discussion, I won't get into task atomicity because you might start crying); in what context would you put your task?

An example of "Hey, I'm at the park, what can I do here? Walk the dog? DANG... no dog" is pretty laughable.

That's one of the advertized features and it is explicitly exposed in the onsite tutorials. That's why you can filter by contexts and that's why the feature is integrated with the GPS on the iPhone. If you're close to the grocery store, remember to pick up some milk! If you're online on your mac, read about biomimicry! If you're at the Park, walk your dog...oh, no wait, no dog (to make it really clear to you, I'm trying to expose that more than one piece of relevant context is missing for you to perform your task). The proximity feature is actually a good idea but life is contextually complex (multi faceted).

One would hope humans would have a little more ability than that.

"Darn, I have to crap, but I'm not on the toilet... WHAT DO I DO?!"

:-P

No offence but I think you thoroughly missed the point :).

The example was chosen for it's simplicity. Pick whichever other example YOU deem desirable and apply the same reasoning (one requiring phoning one of your friends for which you have a context named when phone is also a context...which one do I choose, Phone or Fred? Both!)

Let me give you a less "laughable" example:

**Setup safe on garage wall with Fred's help**

This needs to happen at your house, in the garage, and you need Fred's help to lift the safe because it's too heavy.

To simplify your contexts are:

- Garage
- Fred
- Waiting

Which context do you pick?

*Garage* because it needs to happen in your garage?
*Fred* because you need Fred?
*Waiting* because you already notified Fred that you needed his help and because you are now "waiting" for him to decide to come and help you?

The reality is that embedding your task into each context, in isolation, is useful in it's own respect with regards to the task. Embedding the task into all of these contexts, on the other hand, is much more expressive because you are crossing *these* 3 facets for which context labels are made explicit in your system. There are potentially N such contexts that you might care about, but right now, in OmniFocus, you can only pick one.

omniinmo

Toadling

2009-07-30, 04:28 PM

To simplify your contexts are:

- Garage
- Fred
- Waiting

Which context do you pick?

I certainly get your point and it's something that troubled me at first as well. I had a strong urge to taxonomically organize all my data. It made me feel good and gave me a sense of control. But you know, once I started focusing more on doing rather than organizing, I realized that maybe I didn't really need, or even want, to exhaustively assign contexts or tags to everything that came through my to do list.

Hearing Merlin Mann speak at WWDC in 2008 really drove this point home for me. His suggestions made me realize that simplicity and ease of use was more important; it trumped my desire to bring order to a chaotic world (a.k.a. OCD :-).

So now when I'm faced with this kind of decision, I narrow in on the single, most important context required to achieve the task. David Allen writes about using your intuition; the same skill can be applied here.

In your example, I would immediately skip the @Waiting context; I rarely use a waiting list anyway. This really isn't something I'm waiting for someone else to do. This is an action I personally have control over.

I would also bypass the @Fred context. Fred's not the only one who can help, right? Couldn't John, Bill, or Mary lend a hand instead? Maybe I could even lift the safe on my own if I had proper equipment (some kind of jack?).

But this action can only be done in the garage. There's no way out of this one. Without access to the garage, absolutely no progress can be made, the action is entirely blocked. So I would use the @Garage context. It's the single, most important context available.

I know this might not be perfect or what you're looking for, but this frame of mind keeps things simple and easy to use. And, perhaps more importantly, it's an approach you can use with the software as it is right now.

I think the Omni folks are well aware of the desire for multiple contexts or tags. I'm sure it's something they're taking into consideration for OmniFocus 2.0. They've been planning the addition of some kind of metadata columns for a long time as well. Maybe that feature will lead to some kind of multiple contexts for those who feel they need them.

To be clear, I don't mean to discourage you from discussing your ideas. You certainly bring up some good points. I'm just trying to offer a differing point of view. :-)

-Dennis

whpalmer4

2009-07-30, 04:44 PM

Let me give you a less "laughable" example:

**Setup safe on garage wall with Fred's help**

This needs to happen at your house, in the garage, and you need Fred's help to lift the safe because it's too heavy.

To simplify your contexts are:

- Garage
- Fred
- Waiting

Which context do you pick?

*Garage* because it needs to happen in your garage?
*Fred* because you need Fred?
*Waiting* because you already notified Fred that you needed his help and because you are now "waiting" for him to decide to come and help you?

You pick Garage, because it is the most restrictive of the bunch. If you run into Fred at the office or at the grocery store, it doesn't matter, you aren't going to be installing the safe there, only in the garage. Go read Ken's post (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=36042&postcount=128) from a year or so ago for some practical wisdom. In my opinion (and experience as a long-time user of Kinkless and OmniFocus), legitimate cases where a single context just won't work at all are rather uncommon; people who want to make a baroque system that will entertain endless fiddling, somewhat less so. Just to be clear, I am not saying that multiple contexts cannot be useful, only that they are rarely necessary. This is very much a case of "that may be all right in practice, but it will never work in theory." If you insist to yourself often enough that you can't possibly work without multiple contexts, you'll probably convince yourself. Try insisting otherwise. At any rate, arguing about it on the forum doesn't spur Omni to do it any sooner!

whpalmer4

2009-07-30, 04:46 PM

Well, this time Dennis beat me to the punch, with an excellent answer, to boot. I guess his first coffee tonight at the meet-up is on me :-)

Toadling

2009-07-30, 04:54 PM

Well, this time Dennis beat me to the punch, with an excellent answer, to boot.

But Bill, you wrote the same thing in only a third of the words. Surely that counts for something!

I think it was Cicero who wrote:

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.

:-D

-Dennis

omniinmo

2009-07-30, 05:19 PM

You pick Garage, because it is the most restrictive of the bunch.

Interresting! I'm queasy about dropping the notion of "multi-facetedness" philosophically but focusing on invariants seems to be an interesting tidbit of pragmatism. I'll keep that in mind ;-).

omniinmo

CatOne

2009-07-30, 06:21 PM

Nope, I'm suggesting multiple contexts per task.

...

Let me give you a less "laughable" example:

**Setup safe on garage wall with Fred's help**

This needs to happen at your house, in the garage, and you need Fred's help to lift the safe because it's too heavy.

To simplify your contexts are:

- Garage
- Fred
- Waiting

Which context do you pick?

...

omniinmo

Well, that's a project. Probably something like this:

Buy tools to cut hole in wall @store
Cut hole in garage wall @home
Call Fred to set up time to install safe @phone

And then I'd put it on my calendar.

Easy enough?

I frankly don't see it as "Hey, I'm in a particular location, let's do a search on multiple items or contexts to see where the magic convergence might let me do something RIGHT HERE." You are seriously overcomplicating things; to have 50 contexts and using the intersections of the contexts as your driving force to what you can do at this moment is, IMO, the wrong way of going about it. It's like a perverse over-interpretation of GTD. Even a non-perverse interpretation of GTD is overkill in many cases :-)

jdh

2009-07-31, 05:28 AM

omniinmo

2009-07-31, 08:50 AM

To add a bit more to the above, I think the discussion up until this point has been to support the assignment of a task to multiple contexts in an OR fashion, rather than the AND fashion that's being suggested above.

In other words, I can certainly see the point of having a task assigned to two or more individual contexts in which I may be able to perform that task. IMHO, this is most relevant due to the availability of location-based searches for places -- for example I may have a task to "Buy Milk" which can be done at the Grocery store, the Pharmacy, or the corner store. In any other system I'd tag this as "Errands" and be done with it, but since OF on the iPhone allows me to setup locations for each context, it makes some sense to create contexts for my Grocery Store, my Pharmacy and my Convenience store so that I can have the task show up when I'm near any of those locations.

However, using contexts as an AND style intersection sounds like it would get frighteningly complex in most cases. I'd agree with the posters above that you either need to subdivide the task into a project or sub-task with additional context-specific layers, or you need to simply identify the most important context that is relevant.

In the above example, using @Garage makes sense as that's where you want to think about the installation of the safe. Having it completely cut off unless Fred is present or unless the required hardware is present is irrelevant. If you're standing in the Garage looking for something to do, the presence of that task is going to tickle you to follow-up on the other things you need to accomplish that task. Otherwise, you may never see the task because the requisite conditions will rarely be met.

I don't think I'm advocating an overexpressive form of complexity here but I feel I can see cases where it's difficult to avoid without having to jump through hoops uselessly. What if you have to setup a meeting with, let say, 7 individuals (7 invariants since they are all required to attend), what do you do? Do you create 7 actionable items, one per invariant or do you create one actionable item referencing 7 invariants. For simplicity's sake, I would have a tendency to want to create 1 actionable item with 7 invariants because it otherwise seems like overkill, to me, to create 7 action items if all you need to do is to ultimately create one email to 7 names to then have to check off 7 action items rather than 1.

Then, from any direction across the 7 invariants, I'm able to reconstruct knowledge about who else needs to be at the meeting if I need to remember who all needs to attend the meeting rather than having disjointed actionable items. I'm not saying there's no way to make this work but I am saying that adding expressive power can simplify task creation quite a bit while increasing the available wealth of information.

omniinmo

CatOne

2009-07-31, 09:56 AM

I don't think I'm advocating an overexpressive form of complexity here but I feel I can see cases where it's difficult to avoid without having to jump through hoops uselessly. What if you have to setup a meeting with, let say, 7 individuals (7 invariants since they are all required to attend), what do you do? Do you create 7 actionable items, one per invariant or do you create one actionable item referencing 7 invariants. For simplicity's sake, I would have a tendency to want to create 1 actionable item with 7 invariants because it otherwise seems like overkill, to me, to create 7 action items if all you need to do is to ultimately create one email to 7 names to then have to check off 7 action items rather than 1.

Then, from any direction across the 7 invariants, I'm able to reconstruct knowledge about who else needs to be at the meeting if I need to remember who all needs to attend the meeting rather than having disjointed actionable items. I'm not saying there's no way to make this work but I am saying that adding expressive power can simplify task creation quite a bit while increasing the available wealth of information.

omniinmo

Your example, again, makes no sense. If you want a meeting with 7 people, you schedule the meeting; you'll have to schedule with each person and find a time (hey, a CALENDARING SYSTEM would work great here!).

It's simply not realistic to have your "7 invariants" and to say "Hey.... hmmm... Bob's here, Mary's here, Dooku is here, Fred's here, Lakeisha is here, Algonquin is here, and Anastasia is here... let's check off all these "invariants," and see if there's anything I could be doing right now. HEY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MEETING! PEOPLE, LET'S MEET!"

Ken Case

2009-07-31, 10:14 AM

For simplicity's sake, I would have a tendency to want to create 1 actionable item with 7 invariants because it otherwise seems like overkill, to me, to create 7 action items if all you need to do is to ultimately create one email to 7 names to then have to check off 7 action items rather than 1.

I'm not sure I understand. If the action is to send one email to 7 people, then the context for the action is simply "Email" and the task title or notes would presumably list those 7 people.

I don't see how multiple contexts would help here.

omniinmo

2009-07-31, 05:59 PM

I'm not sure I understand. If the action is to send one email to 7 people, then the context for the action is simply "Email" and the task title or notes would presumably list those 7 people.

I don't see how multiple contexts would help here.

I understand and agree that the data can be classified under "Email" just as I agree that organisms can be phenotypically classified or classified by genetic proximity; any organization is possible. I'm merely saying that contextual richness is lost and can't be rederived easily ACROSS potential organizations if only a single context is allowed.

I'm not arguing that you can't make it work with a single context, that would be equivalent to arguing that hierarchies can't be used to organize data, but I am saying that, and I think that other proponents of the multi context notion will agree, it is useful to add richness to actionable items, within reasonable limits, for search/filtering purposes and to be more in line with the way humans recall/think about information.

In other words, the non-selected contexts are obfuscated by the chosen one (other contexts which, from a human standpoint, provide useful information to recall and think about related contexts).

Another way to think about this:

Carving a statue out of a marble block robs the artist of other potential statues he could have carved with the same marble block. I contend that my artist would like to be able to overlap carved statues he likes to see in the same marble block so that he doesn't feel robbed too much of the marble block's potential.

Regards
omniinmo

CatOne

2009-07-31, 06:20 PM

While I feel like I'm talking to a philosophy professor or something.

Did you play Scrabble a lot as a child? Way too many triple letter scores for an Internet forum.

Not taking the piss, just injecting a little levity ;-)

Lucas

2009-07-31, 06:42 PM

In other words, the non-selected contexts are obfuscated by the chosen one (other contexts which, from a human standpoint, provide useful information to recall and think about related contexts).

I thought that was the point. By focusing on one, you hide the others. OF might not be the software you are looking for.

omniinmo

2009-07-31, 08:00 PM

While I feel like I'm talking to a philosophy professor or something.

Doh! That's not good :).

Did you play Scrabble a lot as a child? Way too many triple letter scores for an Internet forum.

Not taking the piss, just injecting a little levity ;-)

I'm afraid I have a tendency to want to describe my ideas precisely. I'll use slang and obscene language from now on ;0P.

omniinmo

omniinmo

2009-07-31, 08:01 PM

I thought that was the point. By focusing on one, you hide the others. OF might not be the software you are looking for.

I think you get me wrong here. OmniFocus is fantastic ;0)

omniinmo

curt.clifton

2009-08-01, 08:27 AM

Toadling

2009-08-01, 08:46 AM

Very nice post, Curt. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it over breakfast this morning. :-)

-Dennis

omniinmo

2009-08-01, 09:16 PM

omniinmo,

Thanks for breathing some fresh insights into the conversation. I'm happy to read something besides "me too" on the subject. (BTW, I wasn't guessing philosophy professor. I was guessing that you might be a fellow Computer Science professor, perhaps one studying semantic web issues.)

Glad to be able to provide a different perspective :). On the other hand, I would like to dispel the impromptu professorship attribution. I'm merely a verbose enthusiast. Analyst by trade in the software industry business but, not a professor. I certainly wouldn't mind spending all my time reading and studying but my life took a different turn. Teaching isn't entirely ruled out though; maybe in a few decades ;). On the other hand, semantic web issues are always interesting to me.

I think its useful to separate your idea of associating actions with multiple identifiers (park, exercise, dog) from the idea of "contexts". A context has a very specific meaning in the GTD parlance and in OF, so using that term brings in lots of ideas about how contexts should work in a GTD system. OF strives to be both a GTD system and more flexible than just a GTD system. Using a term besides contexts helps to separate the issues. You've objected to the term "tags", so I'm going to call your proposal "semantically meaningful identifiers", or SMIs.

A good start. SMIs will provide a good platform to more forward :). My objection to "tags" was partially arbitrary in that I haven't followed the discussions pertaining to them. In any case, "tags" or "contexts" are a means of implementing the core idea of associating semantic information to *something* and the current "context" implementation under OF seems to be a prime candidate for expansion under the richer SMI coupe.

Logically, SMIs are at least as expressive as the current implementation of contexts in OF. This is because we could implement OF's contexts using SMIs. Just associate a unique SMI with each context in the context hierarchy.

Agreed with the below mentioned caveat.

An action in a particular context would get the SMI for that context, plus the SMI for every parent context up the hierarchy.

I beleive I understand what you're exposing but I perceive a slight hitch in that the current implementation of "contexts" under OF seems to be a superset of SMIs (SMIs + Non-SMIs). So I think that we could generalize the superset to be that of Semantic Identifiers (SI). The reason why I make the distinction is that it is very possible, under the current implementation of OF contexts to have hierarchies of non meaningful semantic information as well; although useless to human beings who would generally have no use for it since sane individuals try their very best to attribute meaning to their hierarchical constructs. I will plug a potential avenue for discussion disaster by saying that one could probably argue that all constructions can be considered meaningful given a particular context (not an OF context but a context in the generic sense) but I think that this would take us down an arduous path. Back to the main point.

For example, my "Call Tree Service" action might get the "Phone" SMI and the "Phone:BusinessHours" SMI. Viewing a single context in the current implementation would be accomplished by showing all actions with the corresponding SMI. Viewing several contexts in the current implementation would be accomplished by showing actions that have at least one of the corresponding SMIs.

Agreed.

But there's more. SMIs are strictly more expressive than the current implementation of contexts.

I perceive something slightly different, see comment regarding SI above.

Actions could be assigned multiple SMIs unrelated hierarchically. For example, I could have separate groups of SMIs corresponding to different people, different places, or different times of day. Views in a SMI-based system could use boolean combinations of SMIs, like (Alice AND Bob AND Carol) OR StaffMeeting.

Absolutely.

So, if SMIs have so much going for them, why not dump contexts and just use SMIs? A few possible reasons come to mind:

Consistently and accurately assigning SMIs to every item is a daunting task. Tagging works for very large data sets, like Flickr, where an infinite number of monkeys are assigning tags and approximate results are sufficient. (Our brains also return approximate search results.) However, when the goal is to show the complete set of actions that could be done at the moment, much greater accuracy and consistency is needed when assigning the SMIs. This makes capturing actions and organizing them a more costly endeavor.

I would generally disagree here. I would not necessarily encourage the systematic or excessive use of SMI*s* in all cases. One can always overdo anything. Too much cake or no cake at all can lead to disgruntlement :).

Bringing GTD back into the discussion for a moment, the Mind Like Water state comes from having everything in a trusted system. If the system instead replicates our brain's capacity for storing lots of stuff but providing approximate search results, then we're back to having incomplete actions and projects intruding on our consciousness.

Of course, this argument against SMIs is mostly just a straw horse. One doesn't have to create a complex system of SMIs. So, it really comes down to whether the system should guide users or give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. In this case, I'd argue that OF is already in the rope dispensing business. Massive power and a steeper learning curve seems to be OF's niche.

Bingo.

Could we get there from here? Substantial portions of the OF architecture seem to be designed around having a single context for each item. (Think quick entry, context mode, context column in planning mode, group by context, and context navigation on the iPhone, just to name a few areas.) Would the additional benefits of SMIs be sufficient to justify the redesign required to replace contexts with SMIs?

As mentioned earlier, I really think that contexts are an implementation of "SIs" rather than "SMIs", but that aside, I do understand that a lot of thought would have to be placed into a redesign using the more flexible concept. In the end though, I beleive that the ensuing expressive power and extreme semantic flexibility would be most welcome by many.

Leaving contexts as is (as are?) and treating SMIs as additional meta-data works around these issues to some extent, but still requires substantial UI and database work on both the Mac and iPhone applications. It sounds like the Omnicians are working on this. I can imagine how this might look on the Mac. Clean querying of meta-data on the iPhone is going to require some innovative UI design. I look forward to seeing the results. (And never mind the computational complexity of querying set-based fields as opposed to singletons.)

It would also provide more flexibility in the direction we are discussing but I have a tendency to think, from a puritanical standpoint, that the design would feel less integrated if SIs were implemented separately from OF contexts which seem, to me, to be the ideal candidate for a makeover.

While philosophically fascinating, are the additional benefits of SMIs practically compelling? Many of the people arguing against multiple contexts on this thread are arguing this point. It's hard for me to say without doing the experiment, but then I'm not paying (much of) the developers salaries. I do know that I mostly gave up on complex tagging in Mail, but I still use three tags there (Personal, Work, and Quicken) and often assign multiple tags to a single message.

Without excess, I beleive that the feature is undoubtedly very useful and powerful. Interestingly, I also think that given that anybody would be able to assign secondary or tertiary, etc., meaning, more efficient systems could potentially be devised where a lacuna seems to exist in the software. Think of it as a dream-catcher. One such example is the @Waiting context and leaving action items where they are but "flagging" them as "waiting" without having to displace them from their current contextual tangle. See How do I use "Waiting For" or "@waiting"? (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=6437).

*snip*

Regards
omniinmo

dchen

2009-08-24, 04:57 PM

Well, I also need to be able to select multi (at least 2) of Contexts. I know tags feature is coming but I will use that for different purposes. Can you just add this feature, please? Whoever need it - will be happy! Whoever doesn't need - will be happy too since they already love omnifocus. Love to add at least @Today and @Week to Contexts. Well, I can see I can use tags in future but for now - I guess I continue use Flagged for @Today. @Week - hem... May be I can create a folder or project.

rllewis@mac.com

2009-08-28, 06:01 PM

New update still has no multiple contexts or tagging? I don't get it. Some of us who love OF are not true believers in the GTD way.

curt.clifton

2009-08-28, 06:18 PM

Multiple contexts (by way of arbitrary meta-data) were hinted as an OF 2.0 feature.

MichaelG

2009-08-30, 06:18 PM

An example of a sort of context I use frequently would be Office Depot. There are two locations pretty close to the same distance away. Which one I go to is completely dependent on where I am at during that part of the day. If I could list both Office Depot, MLK and Office Depot, Clackamas as contexts then they would both show up separately on the location finder.

For the time being though, have any of you found a way to handle this sort of situation?

MichaelG

2009-08-30, 06:31 PM

I'm still really hoping for this too. I think it is very much GTD consistent.

I have written several articles for GTDtimes and have never come across anything in my reading of official GTD materials that would suggest that you can't include something in more than one context. If the action can be completed at more than one location or more than one context in a paper based model you would write in on both context cards (pages, etc). With digitally based GTD this seems to be a very natural extension that allows the app to get one more sort of detail out of your mind and into your system so your system, OF, in this case can remind you of when you're in a context where you can complete a next action.

I would think the solution could be as simple as when you select a context on the drop down that it simply puts a check mark by the context you want from the list. You could drop down again to add another context.

I really enjoy this software. I think this would be a big bonus that would make lots of OF users happy.

I should have posted this (http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=5787&page=23) on this thread.

Toadling

2009-08-30, 08:12 PM

If I could list both Office Depot, MLK and Office Depot, Clackamas as contexts then they would both show up separately on the location finder.

For the time being though, have any of you found a way to handle this sort of situation?

Perhaps you could create a single Office Depot context and then create MLK and Clackamas sub-contexts beneath it. If you need a specific branch, use one of the sub-contexts. If any branch will do, then use the parent context.

-Dennis

MichaelG

2009-08-30, 09:07 PM

Well that certainly takes care of the situation in my example. I haven't used OF in a while. I completely forgot about using a sub-context. Thanks much, Dennis.

ToddBurger

2009-10-17, 04:05 PM

I agree. The program has a lot of potential, but for the price, I hope they will work out some of the bugs (when you change the date of an item, the prior screen may still reference "today" as the date, even though the date was already changed to tomorrow). Some things are oddly missing like the ability to change colors of items on the iPhone (orange is not one of the more legible colors in bright light, yet it appears one is stuck with this color for the all-important due soon screen), an ability to have a screen view on the app home page on the iPhone that says "Today", not just "Due Soon" and item prioritization.

fernelius

2009-10-17, 06:10 PM

I also like the idea of tags for both contexts and projects. There could be a setting to limit to one tag per item (equivalent to the current system) or many tags per item.

Omnifocus is a great program. The many tags option would allow me to place the same blocking item or general action into multiple projects to allow advancement when the one physical action is complete.

Allowing tags for multiple projects would also allow me to setup a daily project, a weekly project and a monthly project where I could designate actions (or perhaps even projects) that I have as a goal for completing each day, week, or month.

fabricedegraef

2009-12-16, 11:48 PM

this subject is extremly valuable, i experience that all the time + i find frustrationg that tasks cannot be tagged from within OF and from an external meta data tagging soft such as Leap.
that could simply solve all the problems at once! we could tag multiple contexts on an action....
a great feature request for me!!

remedy5

2010-02-02, 12:03 PM

So....are tags going to make it into the next version of Omnifocus if the new focus is on the iPad? Should we consider multiple contexts or tags and option in the near future?

whpalmer4

2010-02-02, 12:43 PM

My guess is "almost certainly not" because even before the iPad was unveiled there were (and still are, AFAIK) plans for another version of OmniFocus (1.8) which wouldn't have tags, multiple contexts, etc. I think there's some functionality they still want to get out to us in a 1.x release before charging us for 2.0 (where tags, multiple contexts, putting individual actions on hold, etc. are supposed to arrive). I don't speak for Omni, however, and haven't spoken to anyone there since the iPad announcement, so they could make a fool of me yet :-)

I understand everyone at Omni is having a professional portrait taken, so that their family will remember what they look like considering the long hours they'll be putting in at the office this year :-)

fruitbat

2010-02-12, 11:41 AM

Here's my vote for *both* multiple contexts *and* tags.

blewis

2010-02-12, 07:26 PM

Well I hope it's inaccurate, but Ars Technica had this to report:

"Omni has pushed back its plans to release OmniGraffle 6 and OmniFocus 2 for the Mac in favor of iPad development. "The schedule depends entirely on how things go on the iPad," he said, though he added later that Omni expects to release those updates sometime in 2011"

Ouch. Possbly another year to get your tags/multi contexts if they are indeed linked to 2.0

Robbie1702

2010-02-14, 05:38 PM

; ( snief snief........

dkmn

2010-02-14, 06:30 PM

whpalmer4

2010-02-14, 08:38 PM

I would strongly vote in favor of at least simple tagging. To implement this in an "orthogonal" manner would not seem too difficult to ask. Interoperability with other tag-aware apps (e.g. MailTags) would be very positive.

Not too difficult to ask; considerably more difficult to do :-)

I can appreciate that multiple contexts would be more difficult to implement quickly and thoroughly, given the deeply integrated nature of contexts in the current product.

The stated plan (for years, dating back even prior to OmniFocus 1.0 FCS) has been that they wanted to provide a "metadata column" which we could use as we saw fit to implement whatever pet feature we thought was missing, whether it be priorities, tags, multiple contexts, etc. I don't recall anyone from Omni ever promising to expand the program's logic to explicitly support multiple contexts in all the ways it supports single contexts now; I always got the impression that it was simply going to be an arbitrary column into which we could stuff some data and some tools for sorting, searching and grouping based on it. Multiple contexts would be just multiple values (tags, really) in that column. That's the conservative expectation, I think.

I would be a bit annoyed to wait until 2011 and buy another version for this functionality, which is fairly uniformly implemented in competing products.

The only thing that has changed is the date -- the "metadata column" has been an OF 2 feature since OF 1 FCS, which means a paid upgrade has always been on the table. That being said, Omni's policy has long (always?) been that the owner of a previous version gets a very substantial break on the price when upgrading to the latest version. Given that you're going to be using OF 1 for many moons before OF 2 comes out, that's not a bad deal. And it may compare favorably to the price of a competing product (which frankly does not have even OF 1's feature set or capability) which you then cast aside because you discover it may look pretty but doesn't deliver the depth you need. It's sort of like comparing a sporty convertible to an Abrams M1A2 tank :-) As you look at the competition, give some thought to how well their design choices would hold up with 100 projects and 1,000 actions. OmniFocus handles it quite well. Well, I'm told it does, my database hasn't ever been that small!

That said, I do appreciate the quality Omnigroup achieves with OF. I have been evaluating it for a couple of weeks and would really like to "pull the trigger". The presence of tagging the competitors makes me hesitate a bit. OF is definitely the more bomb-proof product, but I would hate to feel as if there is any "stringing along" of the customer base to segment demand and create more purchases... I'd be happy to pay for value, but I would rather have features added as technically achievable, and pay an upgrade or maintenance fee later (e.g. Snow Leopard).

Every project and every action in OmniFocus has a notes field. If you want to define a convention for tagging your actions, you can, today. That notes field is searchable, and OmniFocus has excellent scriptability, too. Could it be even nicer as a built-in feature? Certainly.

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/9363/picture16u.png (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/picture16u.png/)

I've been a loyal Omni customer since the days of the Titanium-bodied PowerBook. I haven't seen any signs that they are trying to string us along to extract more money from our pockets. In fact, I'm continually surprised at how many free releases they keep shoving at us when there are so many voices clamoring for features that won't be shipped until the next paid upgrade. My impression is that they have a view of how much functionality should be delivered in each major release, and they feel they owe it to us to deliver that functionality before they ask for more money, even if many of us would be willing to ante up again. Take a look at the historical release notes at Help->Release Notes in OmniFocus (not just the page it shows you, but the link to the archive for the full history). Does it look like they are chiseling us?

Finally, I'm obviously biased, but not only do I think Omni has the best support of pretty much any software company I've encountered, I think they've got the best user community. Omni posts its plans to a degree unmatched by The Hit List and Things' developers. There are a number of us on the forum who can answer just about any reasonable question, which means you get a pretty decent facsimile of 7x24 customer support.

Taco John

2010-02-15, 02:29 PM

Howdy.

I would strongly vote in favor of at least simple tagging. To implement this in an "orthogonal" manner would not seem too difficult to ask. Interoperability with other tag-aware apps (e.g. MailTags) would be very positive.

I can appreciate that multiple contexts would be more difficult to implement quickly and thoroughly, given the deeply integrated nature of contexts in the current product.

I would be a bit annoyed to wait until 2011 and buy another version for this functionality, which is fairly uniformly implemented in competing products.

That said, I do appreciate the quality Omnigroup achieves with OF. I have been evaluating it for a couple of weeks and would really like to "pull the trigger". The presence of tagging the competitors makes me hesitate a bit. OF is definitely the more bomb-proof product, but I would hate to feel as if there is any "stringing along" of the customer base to segment demand and create more purchases... I'd be happy to pay for value, but I would rather have features added as technically achievable, and pay an upgrade or maintenance fee later (e.g. Snow Leopard).

My 2cents, anyhow.
The large user base of OF is a big plus, for sure.

The presence of tagging in OmniFocus' competitors has been what's driven me back to OmniFocus every time. I don't want to spend the mental energy required to create and maintain a tagging/metadata language.

Take The Hit List. I initially loved THL for the interface, the timer, the bells and whistles. And while OmniFocus is, at it's core, a free-form outliner, The Hit List maintains that identity so much more.

But I found I was spending too much time trying to figure out elaborate systems not only for using multiple contexts (supported in THL) but also for using the tags. Not to mention the other metadata OmniFocus already has like start date, due date, and time estimate.

THL had other problems (lack of an iPhone app and lack of an ability to easily "complete" a project), but the biggest was that I was fiddling too much with it. OmniFocus imposes on me a discipline that I have not yet learned.

eurobubba

2010-02-22, 09:35 AM

joelande

2010-02-22, 11:09 AM

This may be of interest for those following this thread. Part of an excellent series on using OF — the guy's a true OF power user.
http://kouroshdini.com/2010/02/22/using-omnifocus-dealing-with-calls-and-agendas/

I don't like that solution - it involves several steps, with a link and creating two tasks for the same thing, one in calls, and one in agenda:

The solution is one of those that took a while to stumble upon, but is rather a simple combination of the two:
• List all items which are to be discussed or otherwise with an Agenda context. They are agenda items after all.
• Keep “Call Jim” as a separate task with a Calls context. This task can then receive a start date, flag or whatever marker.
• To smooth the process, go to the context “Agenda : Jim”, «Command-click» and select “Copy as Link” and paste the link in the notes field of the call task.

eurobubba

2010-02-22, 12:48 PM

I don't like that solution - it involves several steps, with a link and creating two tasks for the same thing, one in calls, and one in agenda:

I'm in the pro-multiple-contexts camp too, but until that's available, at least linking exists as an option.

CareyB

2010-05-12, 06:30 AM

This seems to be a very odd discussion. Many of the arguments presented here are moot if you define your Contexts more literally. If you try to use OmniFocus like OmniOutliner, you will be constantly frustrated.

Example (and apologies to the poster):

A "Context", in the GTD/OF sense, is a circumstance you find yourself in - holding your iPhone, browsing the Web, in the presence of a specific person, in your office, in the hardware store, etc. Many people seem to try to impose non-contextual organizational concepts on the contextual tools of OF, and find it frustrating <insert favourite DOH!>.

I just saw a blog linked from the previous page of this thread where someone uses a Context of "Agenda", and then sub-contexts from that. Do they actually mean they are in the presence of their agenda? If that's the case, that's fine, but there are a limited number of things one can do in the presence of one's agenda. Then they added a sub-context of Jim (so => Agenda : Jim). Does that mean in the presence of Jim, with their agenda… You see where I'm going with this?

Look around you; search your pockets; look in your bag; sniff the air: That's your current context! If you're thinking about a project such as organizing your agenda, you need to be with whatever tools you use to organize your agenda. If you need to talk to Jim, you need to be in the presence of Jim, or, in the presence of a phone you have access to. Do you have a separate context for each phone? Or a phone context with sub-contexts by location (Phone, Phone : Office, Phone : Home, Phone : Cell)?

It does take a bit of thinking, and working with OF, to get the hang of this reorganization. I find that, if a system has features you use all the time, and you can't duplicate it elsewhere, it's worth learning the system in-depth. OF has the most involved synchronization features (enter data once, and have it appear everywhere), and has good features to thin out your psychic horizon (a big deal for me), like start dates, due dates, calendar synchronization, perspectives, etc.

dfjdejulio

2010-05-12, 06:49 AM

A "Context", in the GTD/OF sense, is a circumstance you find yourself in - holding your iPhone, browsing the Web, in the presence of a specific person, in your office, in the hardware store, etc. Many people seem to try to impose non-contextual organizational concepts on the contextual tools of OF, and find it frustrating <insert favourite DOH!>.

So. I've got some tasks that require me to be in the presence of one specific person (my boss), other tasks that require me to be in the presence of another specific person (a documentation person), and other tasks that literally require me to be in the presence of both.

I've got some tasks that require me to be in my office (where certain documents and whiteboards are), other tasks that require me to be in the presence of a specific person (a co-designer), and other tasks that require both.

I've got some tasks that require me to be in the presence of one specific person (a documentation person with expertise on our mail system), other tasks that require me to be in the presence of another specific person (a documentation person with expertise on our data retention policies), and other tasks that require me to be in the presence of any documentation person.

What do I do?

If I can assign multiple contexts to a task via boolean operators ("this AND that", "this OR that"), it's natural. I can note that my context is "in the presence of A, B, and C, at location D, three bars of cell signal, working internet connection", and the system will naturally figure out which tasks I can perform. If I can't, I have to create contrived separate contexts for each combination, and if I'm in the presence of two people and at my office, I won't be shown some tasks that I actually could do. If I can define implicit contexts (eg. "at main office implies working internet connection", "at sattelite office implies working internet connection"), it's even easier.

Alas.

CareyB

2010-05-12, 06:59 AM

What you want is a Perspective.

Select multiple Contexts, and save as a Perspective.

Greg Jones

2010-05-12, 07:04 AM

A "Context", in the GTD/OF sense, is a circumstance you find yourself in - holding your iPhone, browsing the Web, in the presence of a specific person, in your office, in the hardware store, etc. Many people seem to try to impose non-contextual organizational concepts on the contextual tools of OF, and find it frustrating <insert favourite DOH!>.

I prefer my contexts to be a little less literal as I want to consider other contextual data when deciding on a context to work with at any given time. As example, I always have an iPhone with me, but that does not mean that I am always in a 'phone' context, or an 'online research' context, or an 'email' context. I don't want to make calls when waiting in a doctor's office, but I might want to work with my email. I don't want to email while driving, but I might (and usually I don't) make a call while driving. If I organized my contexts more literally, I would have no need for the above-mentioned contexts just as I would have no need for a context to sniff air.

I just saw a blog linked from the previous page of this thread where someone uses a Context of "Agenda", and then sub-contexts from that. Do they actually mean they are in the presence of their agenda? If that's the case, that's fine, but there are a limited number of things one can do in the presence of one's agenda. Then they added a sub-context of Jim (so => Agenda : Jim). Does that mean in the presence of Jim, with their agenda… You see where I'm going with this

In the GTD sense, this would be a perfectly acceptable example of a context. Allen mentions this specifically, although his example is named Joe instead of Jim! ;)

CareyB

2010-05-12, 07:32 AM

Sure… So you have a grip on this, and have your own take on the situation, and that works for you.

However… Perspectives are the answer to multiple contexts.

I really hope you're not referring to OF while you're driving ;-|

jdh

2010-05-12, 07:35 AM

To be fair, however, using perspectives and multiple-context viewing doesn't solve the problem of filtering out what you don't want to see, and for some people that can be too much extra clutter to be practical.

That said, while the level of granularity that dfjdejulio describes is a nice idea, it strikes me as antithetical to the "mind like water" approach that GTD is supposed to engender. The convoluted patterns that would be involved in setting up a construct of AND/OR contexts and inclusions seems to create a situation where I'd be spending more time managing my to-do list than actually doing things. Right now I have about a dozen contexts, and it's usually pretty quick for me to figure out where something goes. A labyrinth of interrelated contexts would result in extra mental energy expended to clear out my inbox each morning.

It's a wonderful dream to have a system that is so perfect that you only ever see actions that you can actually deal with. Realistically, however, I don't think any system could ever be that perfect, so IMHO you have to filter as best you can and then live with the rest.

Personally, I simply assign things to their primary actionable context, and if I happen to be missing a resource that I otherwise need for that item, then it's not the end of the world if it remains sitting on the list -- in fact I find that it's useful as a tickler to perhaps go and find the person or item I need to complete the task. To use one of the examples from above:

I've got some tasks that require me to be in my office (where certain documents and whiteboards are), other tasks that require me to be in the presence of a specific person (a co-designer), and other tasks that require both.
In this case, I'd assign those tasks to either be in my office or in a meeting with the co-designer, subject to what the primary scenario for the task is (and what's likely to happen sooner in terms of driving the project forward).

For instance, let's say that I assign the task to the co-designer's name, since I see that person on a regular basis. If I'm meeting with the co-designer outside of my office, the task serves as a reminder to either bring the co-designer into my office (ie, if we're standing in the hallway), or set up an appointment to actually meet with the co-designer at a more appropriate time (you could argue that setting up an appointment might be a separate task, but that strikes me as ridiculously granular for somebody you would see regularly anyway). It strikes me as odd that you would want to completely ignore even mentioning the task to the co-designer unless you're sitting in your office.

Conversely, if the task is assigned to my office, then while I'm sitting in my office, it serves as a reminder to get the co-designer to come to my office to work on the item with me, either immediately or by scheduling a meeting for a later time.

If I don't see the co-designer regularly, then really I should have an precedent task to set up an appointment with the co-designer. That task would be in a context of "Office" or "Computer" or "Calls" (whatever is most appropriate for how you schedule appointments). The following task would simply be tagged with the co-designer's name, since you'd presumably next see them in your office.

The problem I see with using an AND structure is that tasks end up being potentially delayed, lost or missed entirely. You end up forgetting about the task completely until the "perfect scenario" has been formed (in this case, the co-designer just happens to be in your office): "Oh, now that you happen to be sitting in my office, I also have these three things I have to talk to you about, even though I completely forgot about them the last eight times we met up in the hallway.") If your world is predictable and routine enough that you know that the co-designer is going to visit your office regularly for a meeting, then you don't need both contexts anyway (see above). Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for missed/lost tasks by making your criteria too complex.

Note that I'm not arguing against support for multiple contexts, as I can see places where it would be useful at least as an "OR" construct. However, getting into more complicated groupings is potentially fraught with all sorts of confusion and problems, and seems like a situation where people are perhaps relying too much on the software and inadvertently creating complex problems for themselves. Keep in mind that contexts were originally proposed by Allen for a paper-based GTD system, and there are many people out there who are still using notepad and Wiki-style apps to manage their contexts quite successfully. While a paper-based system certainly lends itself to OR contexts (you can write something on more than one page), there's no way you could elegantly handle an AND scenario in such a system.

pergesu

2010-05-12, 10:18 AM

I'm not going to read all 11 pages here. It seems pretty obvious to me that if I have a "Call Joe about dinner" in my Phone context, it would be useful to have an easy way to know about all the other things I might want to talk to Joe about. There are tricks for doing it, yes, but I'd rather not resort to tricks. I want to be going through my "Calls" list, and when I find myself on the phone with Joe I want to click on the "Joe" context and see everything else I want to discuss with him. That means putting "Call Joe" in a "Phone" context and a "Joe" context.

jasong

2010-05-12, 10:49 AM

No it doesn't. It means calling Joe then tapping through to your Joe context to see other stuff to discuss with him.

You could also have each item named "call joe about ..." if you're only calling him.

dfjdejulio

2010-05-12, 11:20 AM

My initial reaction to the "just use perspectives" thing is, that only works if the number of combinations you actually find yourself in is manageable. Like, if on any given day you could be in one of three locations with any subset of six collaborators, you end up with a huge number of perspectives to cover that. (Unless I misunderstood what you're suggesting.)

My second reaction was... "huh, I bet I could whip up a 'dynamic perspective wizard' in AppleScript without much work". Like, if you could categorize your contexts as "locations" (like "main campus" and "downtown campus"), "people" (like "boss" and "sysadmin"), and "assets" (like "projector" or "internet connection"), it might not be hard to whip up a little script that asked you for one location, zero or more people, zero or more assets, and set the filters right.

I will think that over. It still doesn't solve the problem of actually needing different sets of contexts for different tasks, and I'm not quite happy with the "oh, just pick one" answer.

A way to set up "implied contexts" would still be fabulous. From a design point of view I'm thinking about stuff like the way Debian package dependencies work: saying "when I indicate this context, that means this set of requirements is met", and then making things depend on the derived values. So like, I know that both our main and downtown campuses have access to our private network, every time. I know that our "email documentation specialist" is also a "documentation person". So how do I specify a requirement as "I need a documentation person" when I enter a task, and specify my current context as "Joe is in the room with me right now" when I'm looking for tasks?

(Which could actually be a pretty nifty feature for the iPhone client -- use Bonjour to detect other OmniFocus users locally, so if I am a "context" for them, their copy of OmniFocus figures out that I'm available, and vice versa. Hm.)

Can you "fake it" with perspectives? Maybe, but it would get pretty hard to manage pretty quickly... without some sort of 'wizard' to construct them sensibly... which again maybe we can build with AppleScript. I haven't checked, can I bind arbitrary metadata (that OmniFocus itself ignores) to a context? I know the iPhone client can glue GPS coordinates to a context, and the desktop client will ignore 'em (and that's damned nifty). Can we add our own "fields" for that kind of thing, so that we can write our own scripts to build context-sets derived from metadata rather than by manually constructing them? Like, can I create a context of "Mary" and glue "documentation person" and "staff council rep" to that context as metadata that my own scripts can then use?

The "stuff will get lost" argument is not one I find compelling. That's the case even with well-defined single contexts, if you don't visit a context often enough. In order to prevent that even with single contexts, once in a while you have to sweep through all your tasks regardless of context. I'm doing that already. The same solution would do just fine for things that required multiple contexts.