View Single Post
Originally Posted by Dirklectisch View Post
This seems to be the rule of thumb to follow when setting up contexts in the current 'top-down' implementation. But after some experimentation I find it hard to come up with clear and satisfying structure, because:

1. Truly dependable sub-contexts are hard to define
2. You want to break up a context as less as possible
In my experience, contexts (and the few sub-contexts that I have) were easier to define once I realized that they are situational over time. I was an early adopter of the GTD-methodology and popular contexts such as 'Phone' and 'Computer' made sense in the day. Cell phones were not as ubiquitous as they are now, for both the caller and the recipient, high-cost rate plans made us give pause to when and how we would use them, and smart phones were a novelty. Computers were, for the most part, desktop systems or laptops that were more stationary than not as on-the-go wireless access was in its infancy also.

The workplace (for better or worse) has transitioned also. I no longer have a clear delineation of 'Office' and 'Home' any more. Five years ago at my workplace, graduation time meant that my wife and I would put on our robes and go to commencement on campus. Last month my wife 'attended' her online students' commencement ceremony from a smart phone while we were traveling down the Interstate.

In any event, this is a rather long-winded way of explaining that for me, contexts today are more about my mindset than physical resources that are bound by time and/or place. I don't need to think about a phone anymore... or a computer. There are few time/place considerations in my workflow and my old contexts of 'Phone' and 'Computer' have been replaced by 'Calls' and 'Online'. While there are still some time/'place constraints on my workflow that require physical contexts, I avoid creating contexts where physical resources are non-issue.