Note: when I say "evolves" in the prior post it's meant to be said with a smile on my face. I forgot to include the smiley however so here it is :-)
These forums are now read-only. Please visit our new forums to participate in discussion. A new account will be required to post in the new forums. For more info on the switch, see this post. Thank you!
|
|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
NEED assign to multiple Contexts | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
Member
2007-11-27, 01:07 PM
Note: when I say "evolves" in the prior post it's meant to be said with a smile on my face. I forgot to include the smiley however so here it is :-)
Post 31
|
Quote:
Now there is a a good GTD-point for all of those By-the-GTD-bible doctriners out there. I too think allowing tags or multiple contexts would help clear the mind, which is a very important GTD concept -arguably the most important (besides actually getting things done!)
Post 32
|
Some good discussion here.
I'd like to make a couple points - the UI for adding additional contexts could be as simple as a comma. There is a big difference between hierarchy (very powerful and useful) and relational (Many to one, one to Many). A single action should exist in only one place in a nice normalized OF DB - duplicating it in multiple locations in the hierarchy is no good. For those that argue that there is a logical single context approach to your data, I don't argue that. But the fact is that the human brain is not always a rigorous logical implement. To continue with our somewhat simplistic example. At the time I create an action, the most logical context for it might be phone. But were I to create the same action at a different time I might think to put it under Sheryl. Now when I want to review my actions by context, I have to do a mental pause and consider which context I put it in. An imperfect analogy. To perform an action in many applications, I have a choice, I can: Select and item from a menu Perform a keyboard shortcut Use a contextual menu Use a toolbar Now, any ONE of those may be logical, but does that mean that the UI should be constricted to only use one of them? The great thing about this approach is that it casts a wider net that can catch peoples intentions through multiple parallel approaches, rather than require that everyone remembers the one way to do something. -P
Post 33
|
Member
2007-11-27, 10:22 PM
Great thread...
My comments about tagging had to do with the way my (ADD encumbered) mind works. I think (few) contexts are great for a rigid approach to GTD and if that works for you that's great. Personally though I'd like the flexibility to quickly ask or add a quick note about, for example "OS X dev problems" without having to do a search. Since it's more of a hobby than a core element of my day to day work it doesn't make sense to create a context for it. If I did that I'd have hundreds of contexts - which then of course defeats the purpose of GTD as would the need to do a search. If I put it under a "hobby" context - again - I've got lots of threads in my brain. I want a tool to help me focus quickly. Not every moment of every day is or should be (for me) driven by what I'm supposed to be doing. Sometimes I just want to "wander". Multiple contexts and/or tagging could be easily implemented as an option. If you don't want it simply turn it off in prefs and you have rigid GTD. Of course this gets to the issue of diluting the basic functionality but how hard/disruptive would it really be to add a tag or multiple context filter to a context view? Would it fundamentally alter the tool or would it on the other hand possibly open it up to a broader audience? Great thread and am enjoying reading and learning from all the different perspectives...
Post 34
|
Member
2007-11-27, 11:20 PM
Quote:
An example of how multiple context might not work is this: say you work with Sheryl and need to talk to her about a project. If you're taking a multiple-context approach you could put that in the 3 contexts office, sheryl and calls (assuming you don't need think you need to talk to her face-to-face). You bump into her in the cafeteria at lunchtime and check your Sheryl list: however, you then realise that actually you need to refer to some project materials in your office files during the discussion. So, the office context is actually the only one that applies in this case as you physically need to be there to have the discussion. OK, that's maybe a bit contrived, but for me GTD is all about making those kind of decisions when you're planning, not when you're working. Like it or not, despite the people saying it isn't, at heart OF clearly is a GTD app: the project/context model is from GTD and OF is based on Kinkless GTD, which was explicitly a GTD app. While you might be able to use it for a non-GTD system, I think GTDers are the app's main target audience and that's where I think the feature set should be focussed. Quote:
Post 35
|
Member
2007-11-28, 03:31 AM
Quote:
Lets take your example where the shirt-task is assigned to Web and Errands. If I'm in a certain context, e.g. I'm standing on a street full of shops, I want to see all possible tasks for this context, say Errands. In your case of double assigning, I must take into account, that not all of Errand-activities are allowed in my current context. I have to look if the activity is assigned to further contexts, which forbid to do that task right now. This is in contrast to the GTD philosophy, which wants to keep your system simple: just look and decide - not to discuss, what is correct. Therefore Errands seems to be the wrong context for the shirt-task. Imho it should be Web. Because if I'm sitting before a computer with internet connection, I can browse all my open Web activities and voila, there is my shirt-task. If the Web context is too widly defined for your needs, e.g. you only want to shop online, if you're sure, your account has enough money, than simply define a context Web-Errands besides Web and Errands. The definition for the contexts would be: - Errands: activities for physical shopping or similar activites - Web: web browsing, e-mail, information collecton, reading news etc. but without shopping - Web-Errands: Webshopping I use two contexts for Errands. As I'm traveling a lot for my job, I'm using Errands_anywhere and Errands_homecity. The first context is defined for things, which are to big to transport with me in train or plain. So if I'm standing in a shop of a foreign city, my PDA presents me the correct activities only and doesn't bother me with unnecessary ones. Conclusion: The correct and complete definiton of a context structure helps to keep things - the decision process in certain contexts - simple.
Post 36
|
Member
2007-11-28, 04:50 AM
This has become a really good thread, with some of the best and most instructive discussion on the forum. But even as the examples and usage scenarios multiply, the conclusion seems to get more obvious. Some users prefer the rigid single-context method, and find this better implementation of GTD. Others prefer multiple contexts, and find this implements GTD better (this, incidentally, is also the conclusion drawn by other GTD app developers: Things with its tags, Life Balance with its ability to place any number of contexts within any other context). So, obvious conclusion: allow multiple contexts, and those who find life better without them simply won’t use them, without the app being affected in any other way, while for the rest of us things will ease up greatly.
If only other feature issues were so simple. Last edited by mcoad; 2007-11-28 at 04:55 AM.. Reason: Typos and clarification
Post 37
|
Quote:
Also, you assume that every action has a single context that is necessary, while I would argue that some actions have no single necessary resource, but several that are sufficient. For those actions that have a essential resource requirement, then use a single context, but for those where there is more than one EQUALLY SUFFICIENT situation - multiple contexts increase your efficiency because you don't have to do the extra work (at planning or reviewing) to figure out which of the equivalent contexts it went into. There are uses of multiple contexts that would be flawed and lazy - but we all really do sometimes have flawed and lazy brains, so having a tool that works with us is better. (this is not to encourage lazy or sloppiness, just to acknowledge that what seems the "right" context at one time may not be apparent another) Quote:
Quote:
-P
Post 38
|
Member
2007-11-28, 05:24 AM
Quote:
Post 39
|
Member
2007-11-28, 05:40 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by eronel; 2007-11-28 at 06:01 AM.. Reason: add my reasoning for sticking with single contexts
Post 40
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple Applescript, Create Task, Assign resource, Assign dependency | dexterama | OmniPlan Extras | 2 | 2012-11-18 12:25 PM |
Assign a time window for contexts | Pixín | OmniFocus 1 for Mac | 2 | 2010-02-04 10:44 PM |
Multiple Contexts? | moniot | OmniFocus 1 for Mac | 18 | 2008-08-14 11:18 AM |
multiple contexts and multiple projects | mind full of water | OmniFocus 1 for Mac | 7 | 2008-06-23 09:31 AM |
Multiple Activites for Multiple Contexts | Journey | OmniFocus 1 for Mac | 12 | 2007-12-27 01:03 AM |