[QUOTE=yucca;31469]While not perfect, a context hierarchy can help with many (most?) of the situations where you really want context tagging. [/QUOTE]

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.

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.

Multiple Contexts or People?
 

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.

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

[QUOTE=gamov;31604]Yes, Mammoth synthesis is good. the @phone @rick is one of the great features of TaskPaper.[/QUOTE]

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.

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...[LIST][*]Context[*]Time available[*]Energy Available[*]Priority[/LIST]
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...

Multiple contexts
 

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.

[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 [URL="http://culturedcode.com/things/"]Things.[/URL] Someone posted a link in another thread, but the review can be found in this [URL="http://www.viewfromthedock.com/2008/02/04/gtd-based-task-management-apps-v-things/"]blog post[/URL].

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

Phone[INDENT]Phone:John
Phone:Mary[/INDENT]
Email[INDENT]Email:John
Email:Mary[/INDENT]
OR

John[INDENT]John:Phone
John:Email
John:Meeting[/INDENT]
Mary[INDENT]Mary:Phone
Mary:Email
Mary:Meeting[/INDENT]
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[INDENT]Office:Phone
Office:Email
Office:Meeting
Office:Mac[/INDENT]
People[INDENT]People:John
People:Mary[/INDENT]
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.

[QUOTE=a11en;31914]

BTW, there are 4 items that you are to use for choosing next actions in GTD...[LIST][*]Context[*]Time available[*]Energy Available[*]Priority[/LIST]
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...[/QUOTE]

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

Too much dogma around Contexts
 

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.

[QUOTE=Boatguy;34675]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [i]all[/i] 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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34685]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34685]If you weren't at your regular machine, and you didn't have a web browser, could you still do the task?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34685]What if the website you needed wasn't accessible, could you still do the task?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34685]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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 [i]can[/i] 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?

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34687]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?[/QUOTE]
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.


[QUOTE=jasong;34687]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?[/QUOTE]
Well it was what I felt you (and others before you) were suggesting, with comments like:
[QUOTE=jasong;34687]There's no reason a context couldn't be any of

* email
* web
* Basecamp
* Research
* Yahoo
* Google Docs Spreadsheet
etc
[/QUOTE]
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...

[QUOTE=joelande;34689]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...[/QUOTE]

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 [I]need[/I] 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.

[QUOTE=joelande;34689]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote]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?[/quote]

[QUOTE=joelande;34689]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.[/quote]

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

[QUOTE=jasong;34687]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.[/quote]

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 [i]for this project[/i]. 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: [i]You don’t [b]have[/b] to stay in a context and do everything in it[/i] if you are focusing on a specific project.

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.

[QUOTE=joelande;34867]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.[/QUOTE]

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?


[QUOTE=joelande;34867]Your argument is focused on only one point - structuring contexts.[/quote]

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:

[QUOTE=Boatguy;34675]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=jasong;34868]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?
[/QUOTE]
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.



[QUOTE=jasong;34868]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.
[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=jasong;34868]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]1. Some users don't want to plan, they just want to be reminded of pending Tasks.[/QUOTE]

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 [I]any[/I] contexts or tags.

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]2. Not everybody works the same way.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]3. To increase efficiency, OF needs to provide distinctly more/better basic functionality than a traditional paper list.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]5. If there is a tagging system, to be useful, it must be multilevel (nested) and allow multiple setting of tags.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]6. Setting up, assigning, reviewing, reassigning (multiple) multilevel tags requires very much brainwork and mousing.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Be.;35482]9. Most users don't care if they're given too much functionality as long as they have the choice to opt out.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=al_f;26386]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.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. [I]So far[/I], 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 [i]and[/i] 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, [i]and[/i] 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 [i]right now[/i], what are the tasks it's [I]possible[/I] 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 [I]really[/I] 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 [i]all[/i] 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 [i]any[/i] of the contexts that apply are selected ("show me things related to the phone", "show me things involving Sue").

Any ideas?

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).

[QUOTE=dfjdejulio;36039]For some tasks, I need my mac, the documentation from my office, [i]and[/i] my co-worker in order to make any progress.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=joelande;36041]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=Ken Case;36042]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...[/QUOTE]

Ah, see, I think [I]my[/I] main goal is not to [I]remember[/I] to get things done, but to [i]get[/i] 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 [I]point[/I] is, if all the right contexts don't happen to be present at the exact same time, I [I]do not want to see that task[/I]. 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 [i]could[/i] I do next?".

[QUOTE=dfjdejulio;36045]Ah, see, I think [I]my[/I] main goal is not to [I]remember[/I] to get things done, but to [i]get[/i] things done, which requires that I avoid analysis paralysis.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=Ken Case;36047]Does that help?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Ken Case;36044]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?[/QUOTE]

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)

[QUOTE=Ken Case;36047]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?[/QUOTE]

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)

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?

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 [I]suggested working method [/I]+ guidance to learn this [I]working method[/I] itself; or (b) about a software built to support [I]any[/I] 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.

tip
 

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!

Comments/Questions
 

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

[QUOTE=KeithFK;41843]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?[/QUOTE]

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:

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.)

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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) [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=39300&postcount=18"]live on my calendar[/URL] 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!

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

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.

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;43728]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.[/QUOTE]

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.)

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

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.

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.

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)?

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.

[QUOTE=brianogilvie;44644]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)?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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: [B]Contact university bursar @email @school @financial[/B]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Liquid Engineer;44651]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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;44843]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=brianogilvie;44851]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.[/QUOTE]

There [b]is[/b] 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 [b]we[/b] apparently each learned something :-)

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;44862]There [b]is[/b] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Context and Activities
 

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[INDENT]Office
Home
Home Office
Out[/INDENT]
Tools/Things I do: These are action types not contexts and go in the Action Name[INDENT]Calls/Phone
Email
Writing
Research
Reading
Meeting[/INDENT]
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.[INDENT]Standard Day
Standard Week
Standard Month
Standing Commitments[/INDENT]
Types of Activity: Categories of Projects to keep in balance. Question is are they Contexts or Project Groups [INDENT]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.[/INDENT]
Musings
The cascading order of deciding on the next thing I do is:[INDENT]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.[/INDENT]
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 ?

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."

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:[INDENT]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[/INDENT]Any gotchyas you can see in this ?

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 [email]omnifocus@omnigroup.com[/email] to get a response from our knowledgeable ninjas.

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.

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

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

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.

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 [i]specific[/i] 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 [i]parent[/i] 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 [i]specific[/i] 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.

[QUOTE=algol;46434]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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?

[QUOTE=Christopher;46635]Perhaps rethinking what your contexts are might help. [/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=joelande;46767]Perhaps giving multiple contexts to those of us who want them might help.[/QUOTE]

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!)

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 [I]slight variation in thinking[/I] 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.

[QUOTE=steven;47118]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!)[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Christopher;47359]Did I suddenly get very old, or is he talking in his own language? :)[/QUOTE]

Are those the only two options?

Not my own language; just casual slang:

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

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

3. "[URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chime%20in"]chiming in[/URL]" - 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, [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chill"]chill[/URL]" - to calm down; relax.

5. [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goto"]GOTO[/URL]

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!

[QUOTE=steven;47484]Not my own language; just casual slang...[/QUOTE]

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

-Dennis

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

by the way...

[QUOTE=Ken Case;37991]Our plan [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=13360&postcount=51"]all along[/URL] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

tagging sounds right but its all in the implementation.

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.

[QUOTE=Nicolas_Thomsen;54141] 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.[/QUOTE]
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>

[QUOTE=joelande;54143]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>[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Nicolas_Thomsen;54146]But how would you implement this, so that you would be sure to see all the relevant context at that specific moment?[/QUOTE]
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.

Faking a tag
 

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.

[QUOTE=m.wrenn;54831]
You need a good and consistent system for labeling projects and tasks this way.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Tag Workaround
 

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?

Yes please.
 

Multiple contexts would be a big benefit for me. No-one can claim, I don't think, that an action with multiple possible contexts [I]doesn't happen in the real world[/I], 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 [I]have[/I] 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? [B]To the OF team,[/B] 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! :)

Oh. [I]Nineteen[/I] pages of discussion. :)

[QUOTE=paulduv;54869][B]To the OF team,[/B] maybe you could come down on the issue either way?[/QUOTE]

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

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

-Dennis

Tags in lieu of multiple locations
 

[QUOTE=Toadling;54886]I think they have, at least to a certain degree: metadata columns.

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

-Dennis[/QUOTE]

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", [I]multiple locations, [/I] that would work to, while avoiding another layer of multiple locations, or tags...

So yeah... If I could attach [I]locations[/I] 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!

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"

[QUOTE=m.wrenn;54847]I don't quite follow your point about nested tags. Could you explain a little more, please?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Rauchbier;54960]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

I do things much the same way... In fact, to take it one step further, I note the [i]individual things[/i] 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 [i]call[/i] a person to drive something forward, then [i]that[/i] becomes an item in the Calls context.

In other words, my "Calls" context is a list of calls I need to [i]initiate[/i], 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"

[QUOTE=Rauchbier;54960]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=vballas;55876]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Brian;54976]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.[/QUOTE]
@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.

[QUOTE=sirvivian;56012]@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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

faceted classification
 

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.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification[/url]

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