View Single Post
Originally Posted by whpalmer4 View Post
What about it seemed to add a lot of overhead? I use a similar structure, about half as many people contexts, and it seems pretty straightforward to assign tasks into the people contexts. I could imagine it getting messy if you have trouble settling on one person as the context for a lot of your actions, I suppose. But I don't think I would notice much difference if I took 25 names at random out of the phone book and added them to my Agenda context tree. I set contexts by typing with the smart match feature, not dragging and dropping where the length of the list might be a factor. "ag <first initial> <second initial>" is usually sufficient for a unique match.
It's a fair point, particularly given that you use the keyboard to set contexts. I'd imagine that if you're a consultant, for example, the person context becomes a de facto list of agenda items. My main point is that for me as a writer, where person isn't mutually exclusive (i.e., I'm not spending much time in meetings with one person only) the person context will either be self evident or contained within the task itself.

As for the overhead, I think in his case it became a case of categorisation for the sake of it and less about actually doing. Is it fair of me to think that's the danger of any context system. If you're a filer by nature it'll only exacerbate that tendency.

*cue the Bureaucracy Song from Futurama...*