[Brian]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

With a Work folder, you could place all your work projects inside it and focus on those projects (using the Focus command, Control-Command-F), then switch to context mode and use the sidebar to focus in on the intersection between your Work and each of your specific contexts (Calls, Research, Online, etc.).

Combine this with perspectives, and you're really cooking with gas. I have a Work perspective that focuses on that folder and another that focuses on my home folder. Both have buttons in the toolbar, so I can switch easily whenever needed.

In those perspectives, context view will only show the tasks from that folder. If I just want to make a ton of calls and zero that list out, I unfocus and all my calls from both areas are visible.

[GeoffAirey]

Originally Posted by Tdickel

After spending the USD 40 on this app I must say I am totally horrified that I can't assign multiple contexts or tags like in things, pocket informant or even in todo!... You may need more than one people context on a matter very very often. It is alf evident that one subject or action may need discussion or agreement with a number of people .. I am CEO of a multinational organization and frequently need to involve multiple contexts with one action or discussion!!... This is a real issue and although I have spent the money unless I can work out a really efficient work around I need to go back to PI which handles this well!!!

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.

[avit]

I bought my OmniFocus license since the product was first announced. Unfortunately after I tried using it, I turned to Things instead. I'm having another look at it now, since I think that sometimes Things is too simple for some things like reviewing.

I really like everything about OmniFocus, but I think the contexts are seriously limited compared to Things.

Things is actually a much simpler program, so I don't understand the argument that this would just add complexity. In fact, it would probably simplify a lot of situations that context hierarchies try to emulate, while making it easier to use, and more powerful too.

I think OmniFocus creates more cognitive load, forcing you to decide specifically which single context is the right one for a task. With Things, you can tag it with one or more contexts if you're not sure, or if you want to specify.

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.

Exclusive contexts

• Call Dentist for appointment @phone @9to5
• Replace bank card @errand @9to5
• Fix typo on menu bar @work @easy
• Refactor caching module @work @challenge
• Learn "Thunderstruck" riff @guitar @challenge

I should be able to view calls that I can only do during business hours; and I should be able to select easy tasks when I'm not in the mood for challenging ones.

This can be emulated by sub-contexts and duplication, but it's clumsy and limited.

As another example: I use a "$" context in Things for billable work. I can focus on this in conjunction with another physical context.

The OmniFocus context system needs to be more flexible. By allowing tasks to be assigned to multiple contexts, it can provide unlimited flexibility for so many things:

Priorities (@low/@high/@urgent, etc.)
Time boxes (@1hr/@pomodoro, etc.)

I'm sad that Omni seems against this idea, it seems like a common theme in these forums.

[avit]

Originally Posted by avit

• Refactor caching module @work @challenge

To clarify for those who would say @work should be an Area (folder), this might not be the best illustration: but it could be any other physical context: e.g. @mac, etc.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by avit

I think OmniFocus creates more cognitive load, forcing you to decide specifically which single context is the right one for a task. With Things, you can tag it with one or more contexts if you're not sure, or if you want to specify.

In my mind, at least, it's more a question of when in the process the load occurs - with OmniFocus, you do need to think when you're setting up your contexts, and you may need to think a bit when you create a given action.

However, this pays off in the 'doing' process; once your system is up and running, you have a much smaller "wait, can I actually do this?" load for each item as you scan your lists. I don't want a list of items I may be able to do; I want a list of items I can do. The former slows me down by making me stop and re-consider each item.

[Brian]

More generally, we do agree that there are good uses for tags; we just feel that it's often a stepping stone used to solve some other problem. We'd rather address those other problems directly. :-)

If it helps, some things you can do now would be using two actions for the "this or that" case, using start times and due times instead of a @9to5 tag, or adding #tags in notes and using perspectives to show you actions that contain them.

We are thinking about how best to satisfy requests like this; we definitely want your feedback. Similar to the calendar sync thread, the feedback that's most helpful is "I need to be able to do <thing>". (As opposed to "I need tags.")

[avit]

Originally Posted by Brian

If it helps, some things you can do now would be using two actions for the "this or that" case, using start times and due times instead of a @9to5 tag, or adding #tags in notes and using perspectives to show you actions that contain them.

Yeah, I guess #tags in notes is currently the only way to do it in OF.

The @9to5 could be any day of the week, so a specific start/end time doesn't really fit... it's too rigid.

I'm not really sure how you distinguish between items "I may be able to do" vs items "I can do"...

[pjb]

I think what would help me more than tags is being able to make multiple ghost copies of a task and put those copies in different places--when one is checked off they all are checked off. The list of things to do for the front garden and the one for the the back garden both have things to do after the first frost so if there was one single task appearing in both lists called "First Frost happened" with context Waiting For then both of those lists would reveal their newly available actions once "First Frost happened" is checked off. Alternatively there could be one list with a task to "get the application" but it could appear in both @Joe and @Carl contexts so if it is checked off when received after leaving Joe's office then it is also checked off in @Carl.

[avit]

Originally Posted by pjb

I think what would help me more than tags is being able to make multiple ghost copies of a task and put those copies in different places--when one is checked off they all are checked off.

Yes, I think you understand the use case correctly. But, I think "ghost tasks" would be an unnecessarily complex concept: it's essentially an inversion of the same thing.

All you're asking to do is "also show this task in this other context".

When I say "tags", I don't think we necessarily need a new field for tagging or something like that: just make contexts work that way instead!

[whpalmer4]

Another variation on pjb's theme would be a way to specify that an action in one project was dependent on an action in another project being completed. Then you could have an action like "Watch for first frost", and various actions scattered across your database could be blocked until that action was completed, at which point the projects to mulch the new plants, drain the gas from the lawnmower, get the pruners sharpened, etc. could all automatically come to life.

I do also find that the option to have a set of tasks which cancel or complete the others would be welcome at times. Sometimes they are in the same project, and sometimes they are not. Having the single action available in multiple contexts isn't as powerful a solution, because it may not be the same action to be taken in all cases.