[OOO]

What's great about GTD is how DA came up with some very simple high-level concepts that can fix the common shortcomings people have when "doing stuff". But simple concepts are always the hardest to explain, how do you teach someone how to "get things done"? You have to come up with names for concepts that most people didn't even think of naming. And then OmniFocus comes along and layers its own terminology on top... yeah "library" and "buckets" still don't make sense to me.

The danger I see in GTD and other systems is that users (myself included) tend to turn it into a system for making to-do lists, or a system for documenting projects, rather than as a system for GETTING THINGS DONE (hey, that would make a good name for a book... :-) ) .. in other words, somebody says "get it out of your head", so we feel an urge to document the entire project, with all its nuance, in some external system.

Lately I've tried to get more into the mindset that my lists are triggers for what's already in my head. For instance, priorities are usually something I can determine on the fly.

Same with time estimates and dependencies and other "metadata": it's interesting but unless I'm managing huge projects, I don't get value out of it. It's just a little "model" of reality that I have to maintain, but I'm already busy working with reality itself.

So, hmm, what's my point... my ideal task manager would be incredibly minimal. Very few moving parts, very few degrees of freedom. If for no other reason, to keep my "latent OCD" from kicking in. A step above pen and paper.

Of course, everybody works differently, so that's why we have multiple products to choose from. But I'd love to see OmniFocus stay as simple as possible (maybe even become simpler than it is now). I'd like the core of OF to always be: lists that can be grouped by project or context.