[Toadling]

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

2. Not everybody works the same way.

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

Originally Posted by Be.

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

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

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

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