Context Lists for IT

[joelande]

I am having trouble coming up with useful context lists.

I am an IT manager, and do nearly everything with my Mac. It involves both working on IT-tech related things (the IT part), as well as typical office management-type things - people, meetings, memos, etc (the manager part).

Currently I think my context lists may be too long and too specific. I have used application-type contexts (GoLive, PhotoShop, FileMaker, PowerSchool, email), thinking that while I am in PhotoShop, I can PhotoShop things from several different projects.

I am this method not very successful for two reasons:
a) it can be hard (psychologically) to work on two different projects at once in PhotoShop - it seems a but splintered or schizo, and
b) Often times a project will involve three different applications
so I am thinking of reducing to a very basic set (Office, Waiting, Home).

It would be useful to see what others are doing (I imagine many in these forums are struggling with the same issues). I know there has been discussion about this issue on the forums in the past, but try searching for "contexts" and see how useful that search result is!

How about a sticky topic on context list suggestions, even if all it did was link to an external reference...

[Journey]

If it were me, I wouldn't have a PhotoShop context if it didn't group items in a way that would be useful for efficient processing. In the case of using Photoshop for different projects, what is the economy of scale there? It doesn't seem like there would be one unless you had to walk to a different location or sign up for a time to use a specific PC for PhotoShop, or call PhotoShop support to get questions answered that pertain to different projects and you wanted to get it all done in one phone call.

For project management, I would spend most of my time in Project mode, but go to Context mode whenever I think things might be grouped in a useful way, and then I'd be looking at specific contexts. Knowing that all activities associated with a context would be there is important, which is why being able to assign an activity to multiple contexts is important -- because when you look at a context you don't have to wonder whether something was categorized somewhere else in a "context hierarchy".

An example that you might find helpful as an IT manager might be to have a context for the different people you may need to talk to in your organization. If you need to consult someone for an activity, you can assign that activity to a context for that person. If Omni Focus allowed multiple contexts, and your question could be answered by Bob or Barb, you could assign the activity to both "Bob" and "Barb" contexts. That way when you are about to meet with or call "Bob" or "Barb", the activity will show up there (and with multiple contexts, the activity could also show up under "Phone").

When I was a project leader at a corporation and / or worked on many different IT projects, at times I interacted with the same person from many different roles or projects. Using contexts in that way would have been helpful but alas such tools weren't available at that time (I haven't worked in IT since 2001).

This is an example in which multiple contexts per action item AND a context hierarchy would be helpful. Usually the number of people I interacted with in my IT position were the people on the project teams, technical staff, and users. I could create a People context and then sub contexts by group. Then when an activity came up in which I needed to phone "Barb" or "Bob" I could add the activity to the Person:Bob, Person:Barb, and Phone contexts.

Feel free to follow up with any other questions you have.

I don't know how anyone could manage something very complex without multiple contexts / action, but I guess if a person spent a lot of time trying to define an exclusive-hierarchy and was very diligent in following it, and didn't have to refine it later, then there is a slight possbility it might work. (and hopefully you'd never have to explain it to someone later on)

[curt.clifton]

I don't know how anyone could manage something very complex without multiple contexts / action, but I guess if a person spent a lot of time trying to define an exclusive-hierarchy and was very diligent in following it, and didn't have to refine it later, then there is a slight possbility it might work. (and hopefully you'd never have to explain it to someone later on)

I've been managing dozens of projects, hundreds of actions, and 12 people on my agenda list in OF for nearly 7 months now without multiple contexts per action, so that isn't a show stopper at all. My context list grew organically over the first month or two of use. The key is simply to select multiple contexts in the Context sidebar so that you can see all the actions from the set of Contexts. This is really the idea of "Places" from LifeBalance. Most of my actions fall neatly into a single context. For those that don't, it really doesn't matter. I just pick one.

I understand and respect your desire for multiple context per action, but several thousand of us have been getting along fine without the feature. Based on that, I think you're overstating the importance of the feature to the average user.

joelande, I feel your pain on number of contexts. My contexts are currently:

--Home
----Office–Home
----Chores
----Spouse
--Computer *
----Editing *
----Email *
----Planning *
----Reading *
----Problem Solving *
----Writing *
----On-line *
------Web *
------Angel *
----PB
----MBP *
----G5 *
----Dell *
--Phone *
--Briefcase *
----Planning *
----Reading *
--Campus *
----Office–Camp *
--Agenda *
----(several items under here, some for individuals, some for teams)
--Errands
----WalMart
----Lowes
--Awaiting *

The subcontexts of Computer are mostly for different states of mind. In practice I very often have all the Computer contexts selected.

For example, my standard Work perspective includes all of the contexts with stars above. At work I tend to be very deadline driven, so my Context View is sorted by due date. However, if I start answering emails, I might just select the Email context and bang out a bunch of replies. When I finish those, I'll switch back to my Work perspective and let urgency guide me toward the next context in which to GTD. Hope that helps.

[Journey]

I understand and respect your desire for multiple context per action, but several thousand of us have been getting along fine without the feature. Based on that, I think you're overstating the importance of the feature to the average user.

The fact that a lot of users have been getting along fine without the feature is significant, but I don't think number of users is a criteria that would necessarily rule out a new or change in feature. A proposed change should stand on its own merits.

While the Mac had a usability, GUI, and other advantages for almost a decade before Windows came out, all of my DOS-based computer friends emphasized that they were getting along fine without a mouse or cut / copy / paste. "Why would you want to use a mouse?". The fact that they considered themselves getting along fine didn't mean that the operating system they were using was the best fit for their job. They just needed an open mind.

(and some extra $$$ because Apple went for short-term profits, not market share but I digress ...)

Whether to allow multiple contexts could be a preference setting. Or, it could just be by choice -- if someone chooses to use them by selecting more than one context.

My main point is that "number of users getting along fine" doesn't mean that there aren't valid and useful improvements that can be made to a product.

[OOO]

When I first started using GTD a few years ago I started with a long list of contexts. I just sat down and thought of all the different places I'd need to get things done. I thought the concept was pretty cool. I imagined sitting down or heading out the door, correct context in hand, and completely focusing with "mind like water"... it didn't really work out that way though. For one thing, a lot of contexts just blurred together "Computer Online", "Computer Research", "Computer Email", etc. I also realized I was treating my to-do list like my CD collection: making a neat little database rather than focusing on checking things off (that's why I'm very much not into multiple contexts, priorities, etc.).

I work as an IT consultant from home, so that made it even worst. It was basically one big context.

So I just whittled the list down to basically "Computer", "Home", "Not At Home". After a while a small number of subcategories naturally emerged, like "Computer: Aperture" for when I'm fiddling with photos, "Home: Kitchen" for kitchen projects. Added "Calls" and a couple others.

So, yeah, try the ultra-minimal context list and see if clear boundaries or "mental states" emerge after a while. Whichever context you spend the most time in (like office or computer) could be split up by "area of focus" or "role", I bet.

Here are my current contexts:

*Calls
*Home
**Kitchen
**Yard
*Not At Home
*Computer
**Aperture
**Zone
*Waiting
*People
**.....
**.....

Computer:Zone is anything that requires blocks of uninterrupted concentration, like programming or solving a problem.

It looks like I have roughly 60 projects (a lot of my IT projects are documented in my Basecamp (http://basecamphq.com/) site, actually).

[jasong]

I've also been in IT and now work in software development and marketing and spend 90% of my time in front of a computer. Like OOO and Curt, I have minimal numbers of contexts and don't have a significant need for multiple contexts.

My contexts, like OOO, have grown over time based on a need to separate an activity out into its own mind-space. When OF introduced "active" contexts (i.e. those which have items show up, the rest remain hidden) I found myself becoming more specific. Here are my current contexts:

home
email
- work
Girlfriend (don't worry, I actually use her name!)
* Girlfriend's place
Calls
Writing
Computer
* laptop
* home office
* office computer
* servers
* online
errands
* costco
blog
research
exercise
work
* bug reporting tool
* techsupport tracking tool
pay bills
discussions
downtime
San Francisco
Waiting On
Leopard (for when I was testing stuff)
Netflix (for movies to add to my download list)
Mom

[jasong]

(I wish the "all actions" in contexts was still available so I could see how many actions have been in a context.)

[kardan]

I am an Mac developer running my own business and I use the following context:
- mac
- business (at work time when not doing development)
- dev (at work time )
- offline (things I can still do when offline, like read an article what I have save to my @read folder )
- calls
- errands
- home
- notepad
...

Don't forget that on most computers, switching between applications is a "very fast" action and therefore I can't really se any value in having a context for an application. Contexts shall be added with care! Contexts is a mechanism that is meant to let you watch you stuff from the perspective you happened to be located at. For selecting what to do, context is the first thing that narrow down you choice. For more fine grained selection between tasks you will have to take things as the time available, your focus (are you tired?), what is urgent and what can wait?..

Don't have a @read context in OmniFocus. Create a folder in your computer and a "real life" counterpart. Use those as a folder is meant to be used, just throw things in and read them when you want. Don't have a @email context in OmniFocus. Just save a draft in you mail application.

I do have a context for mac-dev which 90% of the time means that I will use Xcode. But that is because I like to use somedays to be businessman and somedays to be a nerdy developer. For days when in developer mode I don't want to see tasks related to business.

[jasong]

Don't have a @read context in OmniFocus. Create a folder in your computer and a "real life" counterpart. Use those as a folder is meant to be used, just throw things in and read them when you want. Don't have a @email context in OmniFocus. Just save a draft in you mail application.

Gotta disagree on both points. The Reading context (which I have, but seemed to skip in my list) is extremely valuable for organizing me. Sometimes I just need to buckle down and read a few pages of documentation and when I'm in that "mood", I can look in my Reading context and pick something. Seeing that context also acts as a reminder.

Similarly for email, except this is an actual activity, an creating a draft means breaking the flow of thoughts. If I'm planning something, and one of the actions is "email frank", I want to be sure it's captured as such.

[joelande]

Don't forget that on most computers, switching between applications is a "very fast" action and therefore I can't really se any value in having a context for an application.
You must not use Adobe Photoshop (CS2) and Adobe GoLive (CS2).

They take forever to launch.

Because of the launch times and resources they use (I don't like to leave them running idle) I created contexts for them.

Some of the others apps I listed are kind of like your dev context, because I would be doing programming in them.

I have started re-reading the GTD book, and I have been collecting contexts in a runnig list.

Am doing some experimentation.

I am starting with as few contexts as possible, and will add as needed.

@Calls
@Office
...Zone
@Computer
...Zone
@Waiting
@Agenda
...Tom
...Jim
...Sue
@Home

Context:Zone is anything that requires blocks of uninterrupted concentration, like programming or solving a problem.

[iNik]

Option 1: Have on context, "Computer", and be done with it.

Option 2: Consider when mode switches are significant.

Perhaps have a context for certain servers that require regular maintenance. So when I remote into "application server 1", I have a list of things it needs (e.g. virus update, clean up temp files, add blah blah blah to security list, open new file share, etc.) that I can just run right through. Since a lot of this stuff isn't terribly time-sensitive, it's okay if it stacks up a bit.

What about time-based contexts? You could have an "After hours" context for everything that needs to be done outside of regular working hours (system updates/reboots, backups, etc.) Meantime, your "manager" tasks could be broken up as during the workday (when your directs are available) and after workday (bureaucracy, paper shuffling, etc.)

As you point out, certain applications have some overhead or individually represent a mode switch. Certainly "Design" might represent Photoshop, Indesign, etc., but can be grouped together since those apps (and that mode of thought) all work together. Then a "Development" context contains those items that require detailed attention of a certain type and are best tackled when you can turn off the phone and email and concentrate for a few hours straight.

In the end, contexts are there so that you can focus on what's at hand and "crank widgets" by going from step to step and get things done without dithering over what to do.

With this sort of meta-categorization, you might find perspectives very useful so that you can zero in on a "Next actions at my office with my Mac" perspective, containing many contexts, and then pick one of those contexts to switch into by finding an important task within it.

(I have exactly such a context that I use each time I need to find something else to do -- i.e. when I stop cranking widgets)

Make sense?

[Trey]

I've been doing GTD for about two years now, and because i've had no single trusted app for project management, i've been using 3x5 cards ("hipster PDA") to keep track of my actions. When you use that style, you start to think about context a lot more than you think about projects—projects are something you only think about at review time.

Context in GTD is all about what resources are available to you. For example, cleaning up your desk at work is an action that requires you be at your desk at work. Making a phone call just requires you have a phone, wherever you are. Doing research online requires that you be online.

Perspectives, focus, and context can really work together nicely here. My contexts right now are:


Errands

Grocery store
Housewares
Drug store
Community center

Home
Office
MacBook Pro
Mac mini
Online

Email

Windows

Work network

Phone business day

Phone anytime

People

Boss
Coworker 1
Employee 1

Waiting
Thinking


Notice that I have "Online", but then I also have "Work network". Things that just require I be online go into the former context, but things that require I be on my office network (whether because I'm at the office, or at home on VPN) go in the latter context. My company has apps that only work on Windows (gack), so "Work network" is a subcontext of "Windows". (If there were offline tasks I could only do on Windows, it would be a separate context rather than a subcontext, but I don't have any of those.)

This may seem backwards—surely being on the work network (which I can do on my Mac) is not a subcategory of "Windows". But the point is in winnowing down the resources available to me at any time. If I left my Windows laptop at home, but have some time to do some work, I can click "Work network" to see only those items I can do on the VPN without access to the Windows machine. If I do have the work Windows laptop, I click "Windows" and see everything I can do on the VPN too.

Similarly, note that instead of a generic "Phone" context, I have a "Phone business day context", and a "Phone anytime" subcontext. During the business day I click the "Phone business day" context and see all phone calls I could make, but outside the business day I click "Phone anytime" and then don't see the doctor's appointment call, but do see the 24x7 customer service call.

(If the backwards hierarchy bothers you, you can just create a "Phone" context with "Business day" and "Anytime" subcontexts, and not put anything into the "Phone" supercontext. It would work just as well.)

In my Library, I have folders for "Personal", "Non-profit work" (I'm a board member of a nonprofit) and "Work". If I were working as a consultant, I'd have folders for each of my clients.

Now, I can create Perspectives to give me exactly what I need. I have an "At Home" perspective where I've selected my "Home", "MacBook Pro", "Mac mini", "Online", "Phone business day", and "Thinking" contexts, showing available actions.

Then I have a "Working at Home" perspective that is focused on the "Work" folder, and has the same contexts as "At Home" plus the "Windows" context, since when I'm working at home I also have my work laptop and my VPN running.

My "At the office" perspective has nothing focused (sometimes I have personal actions, like printing a boarding pass for my vacation, that I'll actually do at the office), but has the "Office", "Windows", "Phone business day", and "People" contexts.

Then finally, my "Errands" perspective gives me a quick way to print off shopping lists for when I'm without my computer.

Contexts shouldn't be overly specific, but they should represent exactly what resources are available to you at any given time. (So why do I have an "Email" subcontext of "Online"? Just because I find it useful sometimes to just fire off all the emails I need to work on at one time.) If a context offers you an available action you can't do at a time when that context should be active, then you need to subdivide your context (perhaps by making a subcontext as I mentioned above).

Using these methods, I haven't found any need to have things in multiple contexts. The only exception is for People—some actions it would be nice to mark as things I can take care of either when I see my boss in person, or that I can do by phone. I could solve that by creating a separate heirarchy for "In-person people" for things I can only do face-to-face, and then creating a new perspective that would meld "Phone" and "People", but so far I haven't felt the need to do that.

[joelande]

Thanks for the help Trey (and others).

This gives me some good ideas, and (perhaps more importantly) shows that what I was already thinking seemed to be on the right track.

Here is my current list <significantly paired down from a much more specific/detailed list:

@Office
-----After Hours (for server maintenance when nobody is logged in)
@Calls
@Emails
@Agenda
-----CoWorker1
-----CoWorker2
@Waiting
-----CoWorker1
-----CoWorker2
Errands
Home
Reading
Training


My concerns so far:
1) Currently 95% of my actions fall into @Office - don't know if that is going to become an issue or not
2) Additionally I can do many (but not) all of my @Office items at home
3) There are some items that I could take care of in @Calls, @Emails, or possibly @Agenda (but I have ben reserving Agenda for face-to-face communication so far.
4) Reading and Training have some cross-over too, but I am trying to categorize Training as items that may ned more than a book - like a computer or video or audio source...

[Trey]

My concerns so far:
1) Currently 95% of my actions fall into @Office - don't know if that is going to become an issue or not

Not really an issue, it just means that when you're looking for something to do and you don't winnow down some other way (say, by focusing), you'll see 95% of your actions. Is that a problem? If not, no issue.

2) Additionally I can do many (but not) all of my @Office items at home

Then your Office context isn't the right one for the actions inside it (which may explain why 95% of them are there; they're in the wrong context).

Right now, I have exactly two actions under Office: "Clean up desk at work" and "Get a stapler from the supply closet". I have dozens of work-related actions, however, it's just that none of them require that I be in the office, they just require that I have some time to devote to them (and in some cases a computer, or specific type of net access, or a phone, or access to my boss or a coworker). I think perhaps you're equating "context" with something it's not: "general project area" or "mindset" perhaps?

To reiterate: context is when the conditions required to work on an action are present. It often is a place, or a person, or a device, and those are good terms to use to name them. But if an action doesn't require you to be in that place, or with that person, or able to use that device, then you need a different context for the action.

3) There are some items that I could take care of in @Calls, @Emails, or possibly @Agenda (but I have ben reserving Agenda for face-to-face communication so far.

That's the either/or observation I made earlier. Short of either OF allowing actions with multiple contexts, the only solutions I see are to put the action in the most likely context, and create a perspective that includes all three, or create mirrored heirarchies of people in "Must be face-to-face", "Can be either face-to-face or email", "Can be either face-to-face, email, or phone," "Can be email or phone", etc. etc. Yuck.

I don't have too many actions under my People subcontexts, so I'm just clicking Command-clicking People whenever I click Email or Phone. It requires me to give a moment's thought as to whether I can do the communication in that mode (which is a moment of reflection GTD is supposed to avoid), but it beats the alternatives I think.

4) Reading and Training have some cross-over too, but I am trying to categorize Training as items that may ned more than a book - like a computer or video or audio source...
Reading and Training are contexts only insofar as you need specialized resources to do them. If you have paper matériel required for the reading action, is it at home? Then your context is Home. Is it at the office? Then your context is Office. If you need to carry around particular reference material from place to place in order to achieve the action, then yes, you have a separate context—but you need to make sure (through actions in other contexts) that the material gets carried to the place it needs to be before you can switch to that context.

It's the same thing as there being a "Phone" context as separate from an "Anytime" context, even if you might carry your cell phone around with you all the time. The necessary (and sufficient) thing about the context is the phone.

[joelande]

Not really an issue, it just means that when you're looking for something to do and you don't winnow down some other way (say, by focusing), you'll see 95% of your actions. Is that a problem? If not, no issue.
That's what I am saying. Not sure if it will be a problem or not yet. Will have to wait and see.


Then your Office context isn't the right one for the actions inside it (which may explain why 95% of them are there; they're in the wrong context).
I kind of agree with this.

I started out with context divided into certain applications (web development, database development, workflow development, systems integration, etc). But this didn't work out either, so I retrenched into a minimal set of contexts.


Right now, I have exactly two actions under Office: "Clean up desk at work" and "Get a stapler from the supply closet". I have dozens of work-related actions, however, it's just that none of them require that I be in the office, they just require that I have some time to devote to them (and in some cases a computer, or specific type of net access, or a phone, or access to my boss or a coworker). I think perhaps you're equating "context" with something it's not: "general project area" or "mindset" perhaps?
Maybe.
I understand the concept of context, but I also need to find a balance of how to define them for my work style.
The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

Right now, all three of those items are in the same "Office" context, which is probably not right.
Maybe I just need to come up with three terms to fit the above scenarios, and use those as the contexts...

Reading and Training are contexts only insofar as you need specialized resources to do them. If you have paper matériel required for the reading action, is it at home? Then your context is Home. Is it at the office? Then your context is Office.
Well I have an iLiad (http://www.irextechnologies.com/) and a MacBook Pro, so they are almost always with me...
Which brings me to the point of my original post - it is hard to define contexts in this modern world we live in, because often times, I can choose to do ANYTHING! (I always have my computer, I always have my phone, I always am online, etc).

Thanks again for the ideas!

[Trey]

The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

Right now, all three of those items are in the same "Office" context, which is probably not right.

Definitely not right. Only the first of your three points above are in the "Office" context. What do the actions in the second one require? They may fall out into several different contexts, depending on what they require to be completed. Your third point above is in the "Reference" context—perhaps even a specific context for that particular reference file.

Maybe I just need to come up with three terms to fit the above scenarios, and use those as the contexts...


Mmmm.... I think you're trying to wrap contexts around "scenarios" or "use cases" or something that they're not. Once again, a context is: the circumstances necessary and sufficient for completion of a particular action (not including willpower and/or time). This, and no more. The three points above don't express what's necessary and sufficient for completion. They're too vague. Do you need a computer? A paper and pencil? Some peace and quiet to think? Those are contexts, not "things I could do at the office", "things I could do at the office or at home", "things I could do with a reference file". Those last things are expressions of characteristics of the action, but they aren't contexts.

Well I have an iLiad (http://www.irextechnologies.com/) and a MacBook Pro, so they are almost always with me...
Which brings me to the point of my original post - it is hard to define contexts in this modern world we live in, because often times, I can choose to do ANYTHING! (I always have my computer, I always have my phone, I always am online, etc).

Right. But you're expecting contexts to do something they won't. Notice above I said contexts were the necessary and sufficient circumstances for completion, "not including willpower and time"? Willpower and time are where you use filters and foci. Given d amount of time, you set a filter showing actions you can complete in d. If you just can't face dealing with a certain project right now, focus on something else.

It sounds to me like maybe you do have 95% of your actions in one place—but they're not in "Office", they're in "MacBook Pro". (Can they all be done offline? If not, there you go right there, make an "Online" context and winnow that way. Do some actions need peace and quiet too, and do you sometimes work in public? Add a "Thinking" context, and there's another avenue to winnow with. And so on....)

[iNik]

The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

If you need a reference file and might work on it away from the office, consider adding a "Pack up xxx folder to take home" reminder to iCal or whatever. (Or just pack it up as soon as you think about it -- I generally carry six or seven folders containing support material for current projects as well as a couple pieces of reading that are on my read/review list)

If they can be done anywhere, and there's no real mode switch, consider a "Computer" context, or even sub-divide that into Computer:Online, Computer:Office, Computer:Home, Computer:General. The office/home sub-contexts split out necessary network access. (Or, in my case, let me know that I can only do that on the VPN) Or heck, maybe those categories are subsumed into "Office" and "Home" since the computer is, generally speaking, always available in those contexts.

I also HIGHLY recommend fidding with contexts as you continue to work. There's no need for a master plan up front. OF makes it easy to create contexts on the fly, and I use that ALL THE TIME.

If I'm going to Denver for a weekend, I'll set up a "Denver" context.

If I'm looking forward to a holiday and have things to remember to do regarding that holiday, I'll set up a Home: Thanksgiving Prep contexts to filter out those actions. (Yes, I had MULTIPLE Thanksgiving projects, so the context made sense to me as a means to focus)

[Trey]

If I'm looking forward to a holiday and have things to remember to do regarding that holiday, I'll set up a Home: Thanksgiving Prep contexts to filter out those actions. (Yes, I had MULTIPLE Thanksgiving projects, so the context made sense to me as a means to focus)

Interesting. Why not a Thanksgiving Prep project you could focus on? As I've described it, context is about "the circumstances needed to get the action done", project is about "the goal/state/mindset you're trying to reach".

But a "Thanksgiving Prep" context definitely breaks the idea of contexts being about what's necessary to do the action—I'd assume that some of the prep work would require a car (shopping), some would require being in the kitchen (prep those veggies), etc. Wouldn't you need to remember "whenever I click my Errands context, also Cmd-click my Home:Thanksgiving Prep context, just in case I have some shopping?" (Or, of course, set up a perspective to do the same.)

Not criticizing, just trying to understand why it's a context. Maybe we just have different ways of looking at things.

[iNik]

Yeah, the Thanksgiving prep context is a total departure from GTD, but it worked well for me. I made it a sub-context of Home:, and it just contained everything I had to do at home that was Thanksgiving-related. Then I could just click on that context and work my ass off in the kitchen on Thanksgiving day.

My projects, meantime, had stuff like "Pie" which included a shopping list (@errands), figuring out who was going to bake it (@Agendum: Wife), and finally a "Make Pie" (@Home:Thanksgiving Prep).

Basically I made a one-click perspective without all that persnickety perspective fiddling.

[joelande]

They may fall out into several different contexts, depending on what they require to be completed. Some certainly may, but most definitely not. Most of them require my computer and to be online, which is pretty much all of the time for me. And again, in many of these forums (as well as other GTD-related forums) there has been a big push to not get carried away with contexts too much. And again, that is where I started - a long list of specific-contexts. It just didn't work for me, because realistically, they were all the same (computer, online).

Your third point above is in the "Reference" context—perhaps even a specific context for that particular reference file.
Surely you are not siuggesting I create a context for every single reference material I may need...
a) that woudl be grossly unmanigeamle, even with software
b) it smacks of project labels and context labels being the same, which typically indicates the contexts are not correct.

Mmmm.... I think you're trying to wrap contexts around "scenarios" or "use cases" or something that they're not. Once again, a context is: the circumstances necessary and sufficient for completion of a particular action (not including willpower and/or time). This, and no more.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. In fact, even in your reply above you say I am trying to wrap a context into a "scenario", yet then you define it as "circumstances necessary". Not sure there is a difference there.

I understand the concept of a context to be the physical environment needed to perform an action. Furthermore you are also supposed to consider time required, energy level, and priority; which in the GTD book are defined as part of the overall context. The book mentions that all of these together determines your actual context at the time. Of course he does not recommend that we mange our lists that way, because he also wants the system to not get unmanageable, or require sophisticated software.

The three points above don't express what's necessary and sufficient for completion They're too vague. Do you need a computer? A paper and pencil? Some peace and quiet to think? Those are contexts, not "things I could do at the office", "things I could do at the office or at home", "things I could do with a reference file". Those last things are expressions of characteristics of the action, but they aren't contexts.
I'm not convinced of that (yet). As I started at the top of the post, I always have my computer and am online if I am at home or the office. So if it is Office, it is assumed I have comnputer, online. And I have seen many people move away from overly detailed context lists.

For me, office implies work-related projects. However, I work at home a lot. Most of (but not all) of my job can be done equally in either location, because I always have the tools I need available.

What is a pencil anyways?



It sounds to me like maybe you do have 95% of your actions in one place—but they're not in "Office", they're in "MacBook Pro".
Could be. That is an assumption I just make, because my MacBook is always with me. I use the office context because they are work-related actions (as opposed to personal or pro-bono actions I do with my MacBook Pro).

(Can they all be done offline? If not, there you go right there, make an "Online" context and winnow that way.
Not really. I find there is very little I can do productively offline. Not saying there is nothing. But very little. And I don't think (at this time) it is worth the effort to separate the two.

Do some actions need peace and quiet too, and do you sometimes work in public? Add a "Thinking" context, and there's another avenue to winnow with. And so on....)
I'm not sure how I see that is different from what I have done:
- a office context (strict requirement of being in the office)
- a office MacBook context (office-related actions that can be done at home or the office)
- a office MacBook context (as above, but with a reminder to grab a reference file first)

[joelande]

If I'm looking forward to a holiday and have things to remember to do regarding that holiday, I'll set up a Home: Thanksgiving Prep contexts to filter out those actions.
Isn't that a project, not a context?

Wouldn't the Focus button applied on the project side allow you to focus on the project, while in the larger "Home" context?

EDIT: If I had read ahead before posting I would have seen that Trey brought up my same question.

[iNik]

I understand the concept of a context to be the physical environment needed to perform an action. Furthermore you are also supposed to consider time required, energy level, and priority; which in the GTD book are defined as part of the overall context. The book mentions that all of these together determines your actual context at the time. Of course he does not recommend that we mange our lists that way, because he also wants the system to not get unmanageable, or require sophisticated software.

And yet these are useful ways to parse out contexts that are available in a given place.

When I'm low on creative energy, I'm likely to fall into my "Calls" or "Research" contexts. Both are available darn near anywhere (research is 99% of the time online, and I have a cell phone and my full address book's in my iPod), but neither really belongs in the "Anywhere" context.

Yes, research could fall into @Computer, and calls into @Anywhere, but I find it useful to split them out because they are, to me, a real change of internal state, even if I'm physically anywhere.

Also, each one gives a rough picture of necessary time. Research is typically 15 minutes +, and calls are more often quickies, 5-10 minutes tops. (Which is why longer conversations end up as @Agendum instead)