[geoffmb]

Great to hear! Thanks.

Now about multiple contexts...

-g

[sprugman]

I'd like to put my vote in favor of either mutlple contexts or, preferably, multiple inheritance in contexts (like Places in Life Balance). Since I work at a computer from home, traditional GTD contexts aren't that useful to me, but I still very much need to be able to filter a long task list down to a scanable number of tasks (10-20).

With LifeBalance (who's interface I despise), I found it useful to create places like this:

Clients
--- JPM
--- --- JPM Next
--- --- JPM Soon
--- Dante
--- --- Dante Next
--- --- Dante Soon
--- Toews
--- --- Toews Next
--- --- Toews Soon

Next
--- JPM Next
--- Dante Next
--- Toews Next

Soon
--- JPM Soon
--- Dante Soon
--- Toews Soon

---------------------------------

I used the Next and Soon places to say roughly "today" and "this week" as I was doing my reviews. The nice thing about this set up is that I could easily see what was going on with a particular client, or all of them, OR what was going on today and this week. I'm sure there are ways to achieve this with focusing/filtering, but jiggering around those controls all the time is not fun. Perhaps once perspectives are working well, I'll feel differently.

(dupe of feedback message)

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by sprugman

I used the Next and Soon places to say roughly "today" and "this week" as I was doing my reviews. The nice thing about this set up is that I could easily see what was going on with a particular client, or all of them, OR what was going on today and this week. I'm sure there are ways to achieve this with focusing/filtering, but jiggering around those controls all the time is not fun. Perhaps once perspectives are working well, I'll feel differently.

(dupe of feedback message)

I was a long time Life Balance user as well.

Your example is a merit of LB's method of context inclusion.
But your example is what you had to do to work around LB's shortcomings.

It sounds like you may be resisting OF. You may be resisting learning a new way of using a tool.

With your examples, it appears to me that OF covers most of your LB workarounds.

You are correct, the groupings do need fiddling, but in regards to the amount of workarounds you had to do in LB... it is easier in OF. It's like a great weight has been lifted from my chest in my conversion from LB to OF.

My sense is you had to create workarounds in LB, and your mind had to create new pathways to work in that application. You don't know if you can trust OF's way of doing things, or are just resisting doing it a different way because of the herculean effort you put into LB.

What would you think about posting a specific example of something you are attempting to do?

[iancjclarke]

Originally Posted by sprugman

I'd like to put my vote in favor of either mutlple contexts

Just want to weigh in and say that I also found myself missing this ability, the hierarchical approach to contexts just doesn't cut it. If contexts are prerequisites for performing a task, then isn't it reasonable that some tasks may have more than one prerequisite?

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by iancjclarke

Just want to weigh in and say that I also found myself missing this ability, the hierarchical approach to contexts just doesn't cut it. If contexts are prerequisites for performing a task, then isn't it reasonable that some tasks may have more than one prerequisite?

Perhaps you just misspoke, but that is the opposite of what people are asking for in this thread. If a task had more than one prerequisite, than they would all have to be satisfied before the task was available. Multiple contexts as discussed here are for actions that could be done in any one of a number of contexts. So the conversation with Susan could happen in an @Call context or in an @Agenda:Susan context.