[Arild]

Originally Posted by drewmca

The need for multiple contexts should not be belittled. I have posted this elsewhere and will do so again. I've had an OF license since the beginning but I can't use it because it doesn't support the very natural contextual usage enabled by multiple contexts.

Sorry, but there is no good defense against multiple contexts. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no reason why GTD couldn't use multiple contexts, it's just not feasible with a paper or simple list-based solution. With advanced tools, though, advanced usages are available.

Perfect example: I have calls to make. Some are work-related, some are non-work related. The idea of a context as a working state should be flexible enough to support the idea of "I'm in the mood to focus on work tasks" and "I'm in the mood to make some calls". Both are very specific states of mind and both have overlapping tasks. If I'm in the mood to work, I can blow through a bunch of work tasks, including invoicing, calls, etc. If I'm just in the mood to make calls, I can blow through a call to the florist, a call about an overdue work invoice, and a call to pay a bill all in one blast. Those are two different contexts that could include the same tasks.

You forward arguments for multiple contexts that seem very reasonable - with the way you arrange your workflow. But your arguments are irrelevant for my workflow and I therefore have no need for multiple contexts. It is that simple. And from the above replies, that seems to be the case for a lot of OF users.
Having used Things, I found it made me much less focused BECAUSE of the idea of using multiple tags/contexts. The tag system lead me to look for more than one way of looking up tasks, and that was of little use to me in the end. I am more efficient in a more rigid framework where I only identify the most basic requirement and my contexts are more physically/technically founded than mentally/personally ("Work", "Non-work"). With your examples, I normally use one context; "Call". That is it. "Call" is not necessarily related to "@Work" or anything like that in my system - when it does not have to be.

If I have a phone call that needs to be taken from my office desk, I use the context "Office". In periods when I am especially busy and need to divide my days in "modes" I use a subcontext "Call" sorting under "Office" (and I could have one "Call" sorting under "Home", and even one sorting under "MBP" if need be, since I can use it for Skype calls as well as looking up reference data relevant to the call). You could argue that I am thus using multiple contexts, but I would disagree and call it unique contexts, sorted in a hierarchic, taxonomic system. That way, I can adjust the level of context specificity according to the pressure I am under and my "normal" work situation will not feel too much like a straitjacket. I will also feel more free to follow up a phone call with, say, an email or two instead of jumping to the next "Call" task.
Hence, if I would want to see every phonecall that need to be taken, I would use OF's search field, not contexts. That is very rare, however, since most calls - important or not - have a top level context "Call" as mentioned. This is not to say that I find the idea of two separate contexts "Call" and "Work" abhorring. But: Multiple contexts would also unnecessary clutter lists in context mode, since the same task would necessarily be displayed twice or more. If it was not displayed under each of it's possible contexts, then the entire concept of multiple contexts would be meaningless. It would only make it meaningful to look at one context at the time, thus making it harder to estimate the time needed to complete tasks if you where looking at more than one context at the time (which I do a lot). That is the combination of Omnifocus' structure and my use of it. Things displays are not structured that way and I had difficulties getting used to it, although a lot of people do not.

In my workflow, tags/multiple indicators are used for the underlying data material I use, but I only use them for search, not sorting. And most of my underlying material is not stored in Omnifocus, but in a different program with a different purpose (Devonthink - could actually be a separate context in OF...).

I have no reason not to respect the way you work and for what I know your system makes you work more efficiently, structured or even both. And you have chosen Things to be your tool since OF does not support multiple tags. That is fine: I am not much into GTD theory and I care very little for arguments if this or that is kosher or halal. I chose Omnifocus because it does NOT use tags/multiple contexts. And that decision was based upon first hand experience with both.

My conclusion is: I would not "belittle" your idea of multiple contexts, on the contrary it could very well happen that we should be glad that Things and Omnifocus are different. Simplicity is my main reason for using a Mac in the first place, and if Mac software tried to fit everyone's line of work, I think that simplicity would be lost. I prefer trying (for free) two programs at $50 each and then ending up buying one that is quite perfect for me instead of spending $100 on one that is full of features I never use (think Microsoft...).

[ende]

btw, a simple solution here? You can select multiple contexts from the sidebar in context view. So select just Phone, Email and Meeting, or whatever. You can even ungroup the list so they aren't grouped by context.

[makesense]

drewmca, I highly doubt that you will be satisfied with Things in a long run. It takes them forever to fix the obvious problems.

Second, it is too simple and feature-poor. It's interface seems nice at first but later it only distracts. If you have to deal with something more complex than ‘buy milk’, ‘walk dog’ you’ll have to use other planning tools.

Multiple contexts are one of the reasons I stick to Excel as a task manager. It is not fully compatible with GTD philosophy but it works. Though it usually takes more time to manage such database (thanks I have a lot of experience with it and can do it with my eyes shut), I’m free to do whatever I want and easily can adjust to specifics of the work without need to create additional planning tools.

I consider reasonable comparing OmniFocus to Excel (+Project) as OmniFocus claims to be professional task manager. :)

[pjb]

drewmca in your example there really is only one physical context (phone) but two moods or willingness/ability to focus. When I'm faced with similar situations, I just make a perspective for the Work mood, or on the fly, use the Focus feature to just see the work-related calls. While it may be a bit more work up front, and may be retrenching your whole task hirearchy, organizing by project can be more flexible than by context. (Now I would really like to have mirrored tasks in more than one project, but that's another thread).