[pjb]

Originally Posted by whpalmer4

...I do also find that the option to have a set of tasks which cancel or complete the others would be welcome at times....

As usual you are ahead of the curve, or your brain is just too big.

I was thinking a task could be option-dragged to another place in OF, thereby creating a link to the original copy. The new copy could be edited to say something else but it would retain its link status (yeah, just like paired electron spin states, right?).

In your version, one could drop an action on another action (not under or over) to set up a dependency which would then have to be elucidated in some inspector where you could create the rule such as "When this linked action is {completed, active, on hold, flagged, deferred, etc} then make this action {completed, active, on hold, flagged, deferred, etc}. The default rule could be Marking this action complete will mark that action complete. It could also be default but optional that the reciprocal link is created automatically. There could be many links, each with their own rule. The links could appear under a disclosure triangle but the main window might get a bit messy if the rules were there, too. Complicated; I'll stick to quantum physics.

[ianharvey]

Originally Posted by avit

Multiple contexts solves a couple of important situations:

One context or another (indifference)

• Ask @Joe or @Carl for the application form

I should be able to view just the list for @Joe when I plan to see him and find this task. Same goes for @Carl.

This really articulates the issue I have with OF too. I have the iPad and iPhone versions and I'm probably going to buy the Mac version too.

But, I do find this frustrating and I do miss the opportunity to complete actions because of it.

[whpalmer4]

Easily handled. Change the action to:

"Ask @Tom to get list from @Joe or @Carl"

:-)

I don't have many such actions, but when I do, I make an action group with parallel execution, put in a similar action for each possible case, and maybe make some sort of notation in the action names that it is a one-of-many situation so that I am aware that I should go remove the others when one is completed. Usually the situations where I need this sort of thing are projects where I can wait until the review to deal with this, and so can skip tagging the actions.

[imlad]

Originally Posted by steven

As has been said in this forum for years - the single most obvious missing feature is tags. Tags would allow a "research" context to co-exist (as applied to a single task) with a "at desktop" or "on iPad" attribute.

Tags would be so useful when things got out of control; they would allow ad hoc "playlists" of tasks without changing the fundamental context of the action.

Folks that suggest "use flags" must have not many items to do :D

I am WAY too invested in Omnifocus to ever leave, as I am with Apple. I could part with either as easily as parting with, I dunno, a few toes maybe. Not a bad place to be, since both are simply the sh*t (for me), but my only recourse for the "tags" feature omission is to periodically whine on this forum. waaahhh! Give me what I want! lolz :)

+1 Yea, I really hope that some tagging/user defined metadata/multiple contexts functionality will come eventually. Judging by "whine quotient" I would say that if the good folks from Omni were to implement it they would cause a huge cosmic sigh of glee or some such. Until then, I will put in my periodic whine :-(

[imlad]

Originally Posted by GeoffAirey

Discussions are actions rather than Contexts. If you have discuss with different people in different context, that means several actions to go by pure GTD.

Well, concrete discussions probably are. But think of the following scenario/use case: I have an action to write a particular document. It is part of a project and belongs to that project, say 3rd Q Marketing. This is writing, and I do my writing on a computer, so "Computer" would be the context - it being the most essential tool needed to complete the task. Since this has to do with work, this particular task will appear in my Work Perspective (because the project is part of the Work Perspective).

Thing is, this piece of writing has to do with a conversation that I had with my Boss. I would love to look at things that I do that have to do directly with my boss - whether something she asked me to do, something that came up from a conversation we had, something I might want to show her, etc. If "Boss" could be another context, I could see all task that relate to her this way or another, whether I want to focus on doing stuff that relates to her, or we are meeting, and I want to see what is going on in my work life that I might want to bring up. There are ways around it - @Boss in the comments field, or creating sub tasks to discuss the parent task, etc., but it all gets convoluted and a pain to manage. Multiple contexts would make life so much easier...

[GeoffAirey]

Originally Posted by imlad

Multiple contexts would make life so much easier...

I completely agree, I wasn't questioning that.

I have asked Omni to add tags into OF, this would allow multiple types of Contexts which would not be either exclusive or inclusive. Therefore you could have contexts which tend to be physical locations(ish), but you could also tag things with People, tools, pre-requisites and lots of other information while maintaining the project focus.

[GTD]

A very strong case for multiple contexts in OmniFocus--the single biggest one I can think of, and one I haven't noticed presented elsewhere--is the location-aware nature of OmniFocus for iPhone and iPad.

For people regularly on-the-go, it could be immensely useful. If I know I need to buy furnace filters, for example, it would be extremely helpful to be able to apply sub-contexts under @Errands like Home Depot (Main Street), Home Depot (Elm Ave.), and Ace Hardware (Grove). These might be locations far from one another, but in places I might regularly find myself, and where that action (buying furnace filters) can be completed.

With the filter/search on context (which makes it very easy to quickly pick from even a long list of contexts), and the location-aware nature of the apps, this is pure win.

So, please, Ken and crew, consider seriously the option of supporting multiple contexts per item.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I've read Getting Things Done. In fact, I've read all of David Allen's books. I was a member of GTD Connect for quite some time, too. I understand the purist GTD positions, but am willing to diverge from them when it makes sense (at least to me).

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by GTD

For people regularly on-the-go, it could be immensely useful. If I know I need to buy furnace filters, for example, it would be extremely helpful to be able to apply sub-contexts under @Errands like Home Depot (Main Street), Home Depot (Elm Ave.), and Ace Hardware (Grove). These might be locations far from one another, but in places I might regularly find myself, and where that action (buying furnace filters) can be completed.

Set up Errands : Hardware store, set the location for the context to a business search for "Home Depot" OR "Ace Hardware" and do this right now.

[GTD]

Originally Posted by whpalmer4

Set up Errands : Hardware store, set the location for the context to a business search for "Home Depot" OR "Ace Hardware" and do this right now.

Yeah, that does work.

I would still like to see multiple-context support, but your suggestion does what I needed in my above post.

Thank you very much, whpalmer4. (Though I feel like a buffoon. LOL.)

[marco]

I just bought OF for iPad. It is a very expensive app, but would be worth if it did it's job.

But without multiple contexts it simply can't. And all the "work-arounds" discussed here just help partially, are error prone, and in the end this efficiency tool cost more time than it saves.

How comes that this widely criticized issue is not fixed for such a long time?

If I do not see a quick reaction on this major issue I am going to reclaim my money, and promote a tool that does a better job.

Regards,
Marco