[whalt]

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

Life balance did not solve this problem.
You could still only have one context per item.
OF allows you to have nested or inclusive contexts as well.
If you have a Home > Calls context
and you select Home
You will see all items in Home, Calls and in Home > Computer

The heart of the problem is a person will need more than one context for certain items.

One example is creating a list of things I need to do, but also have them available for an intern at the drop of a hat, without keeping duplicate tasks.

Another example is creating a list of things I need to purchase, but want to research first before purchasing, at the same time I need to be able to present a list of equipment needed at the drop of a hat.

There are other examples listed in this thread that would be a good use of tagging.

OF shows me the results of a search, in effect providing me with another filter that I can use for tags such as the ones mentioned above.

LifeBalance does not have this ability.

Well maybe Lifebalance doesn't solve the problem for you the way you would like it to but I think my point is still valid that the inclusive contexts ability of LifeBalance was far different than the hierarchical contexts of OF. In OF you have to make weird subdomains like Work>Computer, Home>Computer and then figure out which one your task should go in where as in the LifeBalance solution you would just put it in Computer and it would show up in both places. Yes, you could make Computer>Work, and Computer>Home instead but then everything you do at home is seen as some variation on Computer and what if you want to set up similar relationships for say, Phone. My point was that LifeBalance could handle that complexity and OF can't.

I still think that the examples you give could be handled by just such a scheme since in theory you should be able to reproduce any tagging system with this sort of categorical multiple inheritance by simply creating a new context that also includes the other disparate contexts within it. LifeBalance contexts can contain other contexts and context hierarchies in a non exclusive manner which OF can not do. In other words each new context has the potential to become a new perspective on the already existing contexts. It's taking your many-to-one relationship and simply inverting into a one-to-many to achieve the same result although granted this may take more organizational gymnastics than a straight tagging system.

Tagging is fine by me as long as I can see those relationships graphically and it doesn't just turn into a tag soup. I'm not arguing to bring back LifeBalance just that OF might pick up a few tricks from previous apps. I think we both agree that the current implementation of contexts in OF leaves a bit to be desired.

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by whalt

In OF you have to make weird subdomains like Work>Computer, Home>Computer and then figure out which one your task should go in where as in the LifeBalance solution you would just put it in Computer and it would show up in both places.

I don't understand your point here.

In Life Balance, I would also put a task in Work>Computer & Home>Computer, because I do not want to see my work items at home, and do not want to see my home items at work.

The problem with life balance is there is not hierarchy... and before every context at work, I had to type out work-computer, work-calls. At least in OF, I can just type calls and it is magically separate under work.

In LB, if I wanted to see all Computer items, I could create another Computer context and include my Work>computer and my Home>Computer, but I would never do this. I don't want to be using my own time to work on work items. And I don't want to be distracted at work and see my personal items. They aren't paying me for working on my personal items.

The LB inclusion... was an idea... but I found there weren't many instances where it was really useful.

The only time I used inclusion was for Errands. Because I was out and about driving around, I could see my Home>Errands & my Work>Errands at the same time if I wanted to.

Originally Posted by whalt

Yes, you could make Computer>Work, and Computer>Home instead but then everything you do at home is seen as some variation on Computer and what if you want to set up similar relationships for say, Phone. My point was that LifeBalance could handle that complexity and OF can't.

I don't even know why anyone would ever have a category called Computer>Work and Computer>Home. How would that work for the rest of the contexts?

How long have you used Life Balance?

Originally Posted by whalt

Tagging is fine by me as long as I can see those relationships graphically and it doesn't just turn into a tag soup. I'm not arguing to bring back LifeBalance just that OF might pick up a few tricks from previous apps. I think we both agree that the current implementation of contexts in OF leaves a bit to be desired.

Okay... now that is something we both agree on. I don't want the tag soup either.

But with your assessment of LB vs OF, I respectfully do not agree with.

The difference between LB inclusion and OF hierarchical is minor.

Let me preface to say, I've been using LB for about 5 years, and have done things with it that are only dreamt of in your philosophy.

I have run into the edge of the ocean with place inclusion, and far off in the distance could see the shimmering promise of what tagging could do.

All I can say is... an entire world opens up when tagging is allowed. But it has to be a structured tagging, otherwise, it can get messy.

Whether or not you ever hit that wall may depend on the type of job you have and how you are working with other people. Tagging allows the flexibility you need to quickly bring up lists of things for other people, or if the environment changes rapidly you can adapt with it.

Some of the examples are... having lists of things to do for interns while still having the items on a list for me to do, without duplication.

Having a list of equipment for me to purchase that I can show my boss at any time, while I am still researching equipment to purchase, without duplication.

Having a list of tasks for a vendor when they show up to fix their equipment, but that are also assigned to me to work on, without duplication.

The OF search function, that shows you all results, is the closest I have ever had to solving those aforementioned issues. And it does a great job, I just have to remember my tags.

If the contexts were more tag oriented... I wouldn't have any duplication of contexts. Right now I have duplicates of all my contexts at work and at home. If I could tag contexts, I wouldn't need those duplicates.

If I could tag contexts, then I could attach peoples names to things... that way I could have tasks for when I see someone in person, or at a meeting or if I am sending emails.

[Ken Case]

First off, thanks everyone for your discussion on this, and especially for providing some concrete examples of what you're trying to do!

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

Some of the examples are... having lists of things to do for interns while still having the items on a list for me to do, without duplication.

Having a list of equipment for me to purchase that I can show my boss at any time, while I am still researching equipment to purchase, without duplication.

Having a list of tasks for a vendor when they show up to fix their equipment, but that are also assigned to me to work on, without duplication.

These all sound like great use cases for tagging actions, though I don't really think that's directly related to contexts. (None of those sound like contexts to me, just different tags.)

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

Right now I have duplicates of all my contexts at work and at home.

Rather than duplicating all your contexts for work and home, have you thought about using folders in your project list and focusing on one folder or the other? That's how I have my projects organized (into top-level folders like Omni, Family, and Personal), and I find this a lot more convenient than duplicating contexts.

In addition focusing on folders, you can also create perspectives which group arbitrary collections of projects or contexts. Between the two, you have a lot of flexibility in how you group your actions. (Maybe perspectives should also save the current search, which would help you remember which tags you've used for what given your current approach of putting tags in your notes?)

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

If I could tag contexts, then I could attach peoples names to things... that way I could have tasks for when I see someone in person, or at a meeting or if I am sending emails.

I've been putting all these in my "Agenda:Person" contexts, because my needs are relatively simple: I don't need to track whether my contact is on the phone or in person or whatever. (I just do a little mental filtering when I look at those agenda items, i.e. skipping past a compensation discussion unless I'm in a one-on-one meeting.) What other contexts are you using for actions associated with a person?

(Please note that I'm not trying to dictate that you should do things my way, I'm just trying to show you some of the patterns I'm using that you might not have found yet, and to make sure I understand the things you're trying to do that I might not have considered yet.)

Thanks again, everyone, for your great feedback in this thread!

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Rather than duplicating all your contexts for work and home, have you thought about using folders in your project list and focusing on one folder or the other? That's how I have my projects organized (into top-level folders like Omni, Family, and Personal), and I find this a lot more convenient than duplicating contexts.

Interesting... I do have my projects grouped into folders for work & home, but didn't think about using that to filter out my tasks and get rid of all my duplicate contexts. I'll look into that. Thanks for the suggestion.

Originally Posted by Ken Case

In addition focusing on folders, you can also create perspectives which group arbitrary collections of projects or contexts. Between the two, you have a lot of flexibility in how you group your actions. (Maybe perspectives should also save the current search, which would help you remember which tags you've used for what given your current approach of putting tags in your notes?)

I haven't fooled around with the perspectives that much. Sounds like a solution for memorizing searches... or in my case, tags. Hopefully there will be a way to name the perspective at some point?

Originally Posted by Ken Case

I've been putting all these in my "Agenda:Person" contexts, because my needs are relatively simple: I don't need to track whether my contact is on the phone or in person or whatever. (I just do a little mental filtering when I look at those agenda items, i.e. skipping past a compensation discussion unless I'm in a one-on-one meeting.) What other contexts are you using for actions associated with a person?

It's the mental filtering I want to get away from. If I am constantly mental filtering, I go numb to the entire list. I went numb to my list with the last application I was using because it was so much work to try and make it work GTD style. Too much mental work & filtering. The point of the filters & GTD is... do the thinking before hand, then crank on action items.

I don't track if someone is on the phone or not. But if I have a need to talk to a vendor about their product. I have it in a calls context. They show up on a surprise visit. I'm not going to think... hmm... I'll go to calls to see if there is anything to talk about. I might think... is there anything to talk to this vendor about, and go to the vendor tag I have set up, that would show me things I need to email, call about, problems I'm having with their product, and talk about in person. But if they don't show up for a surprise visit, when I am going through my calls context, I'll call them about that item.

The preceding item is an extremely simple example to show a point. If a person is in a job, where there are 10 vendors for 20 different products you are supporting, and that's just working with the vendors. Then there are coworkers. Using one Agendas context for everything becomes more work than it is worth.

I haven't been using agendas because with agendas I would need my list mobile to make good use of it. Currently, I can't take my OF list into most meetings, because it is on my desktop computer. If someday the iPhone has OF on it, then Agendas would become useful because the list would become mobile.

I use contexts as what I am going to do. Tags, I use to become flexible. When the situation changes drastically, I can't sit there for 10 min and tell the person in front of me, hold on let me check my agendas, no that's not where it is, let me check my emails, no... hmm... no where is that task item.... ahh here it is... but I know there was another one somewhere... hang on.

Instead of,

Rob, I'm glad your here, there are a couple things we need to talk about... give me a second, okay, first... blah blah blah...

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

Hopefully there will be a way to name the perspective at some point?

Yes, definitely.

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

It's the mental filtering I want to get away from. If I am constantly mental filtering, I go numb to the entire list.

My agenda contexts are pretty small, usually just a few items, so I guess I haven't experienced this problem. (Maybe I will later!)

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

I don't track if someone is on the phone or not. But if I have a need to talk to a vendor about their product. I have it in a calls context. They show up on a surprise visit. I'm not going to think... hmm... I'll go to calls to see if there is anything to talk about. I might think... is there anything to talk to this vendor about, and go to the vendor tag I have set up, that would show me things I need to email, call about, problems I'm having with their product, and talk about in person. But if they don't show up for a surprise visit, when I am going through my calls context, I'll call them about that item.

I wouldn't want to look in more than one place either, and that's one reason I try to keep my context list as simple as possible. For one-off contacts related to a single action (like "Make an appointment with the dentist"), I use a generic Phone or Email context. But for items related to a relationship where I might encounter the person in multiple contexts, I always use a separate agenda context for that person (like Agenda:Jane or Agenda:Bob). When I talk with someone (whatever the physical context), I can get at everything I need to talk to them about by selecting their agenda context.

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

The preceding item is an extremely simple example to show a point. If a person is in a job, where there are 10 vendors for 20 different products you are supporting, and that's just working with the vendors. Then there are coworkers. Using one Agendas context for everything becomes more work than it is worth.

Are you saying it's a lot of work to create separate agendas for each person (too much work during planning time), or a lot of work to put all their items in a single agenda context and then have to sort through it later (too much work when acting on those actions)?

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

I haven't been using agendas because with agendas I would need my list mobile to make good use of it. Currently, I can't take my OF list into most meetings, because it is on my desktop computer. If someday the iPhone has OF on it, then Agendas would become useful because the list would become mobile.

Most of my agenda items aren't related to meetings, they're just things I need to talk with someone about (often in email, sometimes on the phone or IM or in person). But when I do want to take my agendas to a meeting (without taking my laptop), I find printing them to work pretty well.

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

When the situation changes drastically, I can't sit there for 10 min and tell the person in front of me, hold on let me check my agendas, no that's not where it is, let me check my emails, no... hmm... no where is that task item.... ahh here it is... but I know there was another one somewhere... hang on.

Right, that's exactly why I put all those actions into an agenda context for that person, and don't list them in other contexts. When I act in other contexts (like email), I also scan my agenda items. But just because that's working for me (at least at the moment) doesn't mean that it will work for everyone.

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Are you saying it's a lot of work to create separate agendas for each person (too much work during planning time), or a lot of work to put all their items in a single agenda context and then have to sort through it later (too much work when acting on those actions)?

It is a lot of work to put all their items in a single agenda context and then sort through it later. Too much work when acting on those actions is what I am saying.

Putting all the items in a single agenda item breaks the reason why we use contexts.

If I have 20 individual agenda contexts (10 Vendors, 3 for bosses, 7 for co-workers), then every day I need to scan them to see who I need to talk to for the day. It's not using contexts for what contexts are intended for...

When breaking apart tasks that all deal with one person, but fall into different ways of contacting them I separate out into contexts.

My preferred method of contacting a person is email. So anything I can send in an email I will put into an email context.
For items where talking to a person is more appropriate, I place them in the calls context.
For items that need that face to face contact, I put them in Agendas.

My daily routine is going through the contexts and processing. Processing all calls, processing emails, processing computer...

If I am waiting in an airport, and have a cell phone with me, I want to see the tasks I can complete with the cell phone. If all of my tasks for contacting a person are in agendas, then it takes a lot of mental effort and time to go through my agendas, and for each item think...
can I can do this on the phone or does in need to be an email or in person.

It's very akin to working from the inbox.
We don't do it.
It's inefficient.
And a person ends up skipping items to do because they are in the wrong context.

I can't email this item because I don't have an internet.
so you skip down to the next item.
I can't complete this item because I really need to talk to this person face to face.
so you skip down to the next item.

The next day, what happens...
the same process, start at the top and skip over things that can't really be done right now. A person ends up touching every task more than once.

When we process the inbox, we put items in the correct context as an actionable item so that when we process the context we don't have to think the thought...
is this something I can do right now.

The goal of GTD is to do the thinking first, then crank through the contexts of actionable items without thinking the thoughts...
can I do this now,
do I have the correct tools,
is the person around.

That thinking was done during the weekly review or processing of the inbox. All I should have to do when I look at my calls context is make calls...
Hey Jill... I'm calling about blah blah...
Hey Jack... do you have the blah blah...

The tagging comes into play when I need to break the contexts.

Tagging allows the list to become flexible and gives me the ability to change my direction instantly.

When I processed my inbox, i wrote the things that need to happen with Bob in my emails, calls and agendas. Suddenly, Bob is in front of me... I can break the contexts and see everything that I need to talk to Bob about. This saves me time and helps me crank through my items.

When I did my weekly review, I wrote all the things that I need to be working on, but some of them are simple enough for an intern to do, so I tag those items as intern.

On Monday, the secretary comes up to me and says... I have a community service worker here for the day, is there anything you have for him to do?

I can filter by my intern tag and give them a list of things to do. I've just saved myself time and our volunteer felt like we had something for them to do instead of making up some menial task to keep them busy.

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

I wouldn't want to look in more than one place either, and that's one reason I try to keep my context list as simple as possible. For one-off contacts related to a single action (like "Make an appointment with the dentist"), I use a generic Phone or Email context. But for items related to a relationship where I might encounter the person in multiple contexts, I always use a separate agenda context for that person (like Agenda:Jane or Agenda:Bob). When I talk with someone (whatever the physical context), I can get at everything I need to talk to them about by selecting their agenda context.

I agree with keeping a context list as simple as possible. If you are processing items in a context, and you get to a task and think... I can't really do that now... then you probably need another context.

This is why some people have an Internet & Computer context. There are times when you may have a computer available, but unable to connect to the internet. Flying on an airplane is a good example. When you use a context, you don't want to see things that you have no chance of accomplishing because you don't have the correct tool, person or time available at your disposal.

[kmarkley]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Rather than duplicating all your contexts for work and home, have you thought about using folders in your project list and focusing on one folder or the other? That's how I have my projects organized (into top-level folders like Omni, Family, and Personal), and I find this a lot more convenient than duplicating contexts.

In addition focusing on folders, you can also create perspectives which group arbitrary collections of projects or contexts. Between the two, you have a lot of flexibility in how you group your actions. (Maybe perspectives should also save the current search, which would help you remember which tags you've used for what given your current approach of putting tags in your notes?)

Originally Posted by Ken Case

(Maybe perspectives should also save the current search, which would help you remember which tags you've used for what given your current approach of putting tags in your notes?)

I love this method, which to me seems to be the big way the OF distinguishes itself from the competition (and, I assume, the reason for the name). I had an impassioned exchange with a ninja last week when it was suggested that this functionality might go away.

The big problem is that focusing on folders is not yet remembered in perspectives (but I understand it will in the future). Once you can quickly call up both an arbitrary list of contexts and an arbitrary list of projects/folders, then it will be really killer.

I would love it if Perpectives also saved the search field. I made a feature request to that effect a few days ago.

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Rather than duplicating all your contexts for work and home, have you thought about using folders in your project list and focusing on one folder or the other? That's how I have my projects organized (into top-level folders like Omni, Family, and Personal), and I find this a lot more convenient than duplicating contexts.

Just moved the data around (beautiful that I can select multiple items in a context and just drop it over to it's new context. Oddly enough, I've never been able to assign a context to multiple items in a previous application.)

The focus is working beautifully. Thanks for the suggestion. I was able to get rid of half of my contexts.

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

The focus is working beautifully. Thanks for the suggestion. I was able to get rid of half of my contexts.

Excellent! I'm glad that's working for you.