[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by brab

One thing I have not been able to fit in the current context system is the level of efforts a task require (which is one of the canonical questions in the "doing" part of The Book). Let's say I'm dead tired but I have one hour and I can do mindless things: do I need to go through every task that I have and evaluate if I have the effort to do it?

Are you using the estimated time column? It is really about time required, but if you aren't using it for time you could use it for estimated amount of brainpower required. Hmm, this task may take 45 minutes, but it only requires 1 minute of thinking.

[ksrhee]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

Are you using the estimated time column? It is really about time required, but if you aren't using it for time you could use it for estimated amount of brainpower required. Hmm, this task may take 45 minutes, but it only requires 1 minute of thinking.

In my case, I would use the estimated time for time required, but use flags to indicate efforts. Flag = high/important effort; No flag = med/low effort.

It's not as elegant as having its own system, but it allows you to at least eliminate one group of tasks.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by mcoad

Fair enough, but you wouldn’t have to if you didn’t want to use the feature, as been said so many times on the forum. As has also been said several times, no, I/we don’t find it inelegant. Just the reverse, it’s what would serve us best. And anyway, this would only happen if you had large numbers of your contexts open at one time, which is pretty inelegant anyway.

How on earth are you using OF if you aren't in multiple contexts at once? (That's a rhetorical question).

I think that this is the problem that most everybody here is talking past. Some folks are arguing that an action must be in all the possible contexts where one could do it, so that upon selecting a single context the action will show up. Others are saying that an action belongs in the one context where it is actionable, and if you don't have such a context then you need to refine your contexts. This viewpoint then relies on OF's ability to show multiple contexts at once.

I find great value in GTD forcing me to have the discipline to think things through during processing and planning time. That's what gives me the mind-like-water feeling. Nothing slips through the cracks once I've established the habits. In Merlin Mann's interviews with David Allen, Allen talks a lot about the multiplicative effects of developing discipline in all the stages of GTD (capturing, processing, reviewing, doing, ...). He also talks about the benefits from evening getting better at just a couple of these. I suspect that the first idea resonates most with the single-context purists, while the second does so with the multiple-context advocates. At least I find that an intriguing way to think about the question.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by mcoad

Just to make this crystal clear, and at the risk of boring the socks of everyone with yet another example, here’s a real life situation that has just come up. I need to ask a friend, Seb, for some contact details. These are for someone I need to get in touch with for work reasons. Seb, however, has nothing to do with my work. He’s my best friend and we play jazz together, and will probably rehearse tomorrow. So, given that OF in its wisdom only allows me one context, do I put the task in Seb or in Work? If I do the first, it puts the logic out of joint and cuts the step off from the rest of my workflow, but if I put it in Work I risk forgetting to bring it up with Seb when looking over what I need to talk to him about next.

Wait a sec. Why would that task belong in a Work context? Contexts are entirely about the constraints on where you can do something. They have nothing to do with the project or area of responsibility related to the action. That's what Projects and Folders are for.

I was buying your argument. But now I wonder if there isn't really some confusion about what contexts are. Would you be willing to share your context list?

[Journey]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

I think that this is the problem that most everybody here is talking past. Some folks are arguing that an action must be in all the possible contexts where one could do it, so that upon selecting a single context the action will show up. Others are saying that an action belongs in the one context where it is actionable, and if you don't have such a context then you need to refine your contexts. This viewpoint then relies on OF's ability to show multiple contexts at once.

With multiple contexts my intent wouldn't be for an action to be in all of the possible contexts where one could do an activity. I would still use discipline in my choice of contexts.

"Get gas at Mobile station on the way to work" would probably fall into the general category of "Errand" even though I might have a place in mind to get the gas at.

Multiple contexts are useful to me if my contexts have been well thought out. Well thought out and disciplined though, to me, doesn't mean that every activity will always fit into one context.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by LizPf

I can also see how including a multiple Context ability can really gum up the system for anyone who doesn't use them very sparingly.

I just love this logic. Liz, how many fonts do you have activated in your favourite word processing app: twenty, thirty, fifty? Well, I reckon that’s far too many and we should restrict you to, say, three. That should be enough for any reasonable user. I mean, we can’t have you throwing just any old font all over your newsletter or thesis doc, can we? Nobody will understand you, you won’t understand yourself, you’ll really gum up the system. And anyway you normally only use a couple, don’t you, nice and sparing, so what’s the odds? So, for your own good, let’s take the shears to your font archive...

How about that other app, OmniGraffle? All those squares and circles and arrows and weird shapes. It‘s totally out of control, a person could put them anywhere, all over the screen, total mess, gum up everything. No way. For their own good, limit these people to five triangles, a couple of octagons and maybe half a dozen rectangles. That should be sparing enough for any reasonable user.

People aren’t stupid. Or not that stupid. They can be trusted to use such features “sparingly“, really. And if they don’t, then in this app they’ll be the first to know and have to pare down, just as they did long ago when they learnt not to be promiscuous with their fonts. No-one else will be affected. No-one will have to goggle at their doc with twenty fonts and ninety hexagons. They’ll just end up with their contexts in a twist and will soon learn. And meanwhile, the rest of us, the sensible ones, will find that OF really, truly rocks.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

Wait a sec. Why would that task belong in a Work context? Contexts are entirely about the constraints on where you can do something. They have nothing to do with the project or area of responsibility related to the action. That's what Projects and Folders are for.

I was buying your argument. But now I wonder if there isn't really some confusion about what contexts are. Would you be willing to share your context list?

I’m still refining my contexts list, working out how they best suit me in practice, so the terminology may be misleading. I understand what you’re saying, but I’m a writer and Work at the moment basically means what I do at my desk, in my office workspace, as opposed to Library, Archive, Location, etc. Later, when a project requires it - and it’s unusual that none do right now - I’ll add those and refine further. My working life isn’t that complex, mostly on my own, a few projects on the go more or less simultaneously: a book ready for the publishers, a novel I’m planning, a TV series idea I’m researching, a play production I’m advising on, article ideas. What I need right now when I boot up my computer is to see presented in a single list what next needs doing while I’m at my desk for all the projects among these that I’m working on right now. That’s why, for the moment, they are assigned to a context I’ve called Work (distinct from the folder they’re all in, which is called Writing) so that they can appear together. This may not be usual for other users, and you may find it too heterogeneous, but for this particular moment in my daily workflow it’s what I need and the Context mode is what allows me to do it. When this is done and I need to focus on one project, I go to Planning mode and do it there.

Whether this is absolutely orthodox GTD and whether I have my notion of contexts refined exactly as orthodoxy demands, really doesn’t worry me. I find GTD helpful in imposing discipline, aiding ordering, etc, but I’m concerned - like most users, I suspect - to use it and OF as best it serves me, weeding out my own foibles if they are negative but not otherwise. Up to now OF is doing this superbly well, with the one exception of this frustrating business of single contexts (oh, and the lack of a time-line visualization view, as discussed in other threads, but that’s a lost cause, I fear). And I can see the rigid single context becoming an even greater problem when I have to add other working contexts. All this quite apart from the fact that I simply don’t see any real argument in favour of it; this is just an opinion, I know, but it is infuriating when a feature that could help many is opposed by users for whom its inclusion wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference if they chose not to use it.

But however I define my contexts - if, in this simplistic case, for example, I want to put my query to Seb in a more orthodox Phone context rather than Work - the same problem will arise. I appreciate your offer of help, but I don’t think it’s a matter of how I’m thinking of contexts.

[Journey]

Originally Posted by mcoad

And I can see the rigid single context becoming an even greater problem when I have to add other working contexts. All this quite apart from the fact that I simply don’t see any real argument in favour of it; this is just an opinion, I know, but it is infuriating when a feature that could help many is opposed by users for whom its inclusion wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference if they chose not to use it.

But however I define my contexts - if, in this simplistic case, for example, I want to put my query to Seb in a more orthodox Phone context rather than Work - the same problem will arise. I appreciate your offer of help, but I don’t think it’s a matter of how I’m thinking of contexts.

Exactly -- for those who don't want or feel that they need multiple contexts, they can use one / action.

I enjoyed your post about fonts and shapes -- you are a skilled writer and very good at getting your point across.

[OOO]

Originally Posted by mcoad

Liz, how many fonts do you have activated in your favourite word processing app: twenty, thirty, fifty?

That reminds me, Apple really needs to remove that pointless "single font restriction". I just want to set my resume in both Times and Comic Sans simultaneously, because it looks good in both!

(sorry couldn't resist)

[Journey]

Originally Posted by OOO

That reminds me, Apple really needs to remove that pointless "single font restriction". I just want to set my resume in both Times and Comic Sans simultaneously, because it looks good in both!

(sorry couldn't resist)

No no no ... the way things work using the SFI (single font / idea) methodology is that every idea can have its own font. Having perhaps a dozen fonts is perfectly OK as you don't try to apply more than one font to that idea (and why in the world would you need to do that anyway).

In addition, when you choose your font you must also stick to one font style for that idea. You can have plain or bold or italics but do not combine them.

This assumes that you have a hierarchy like the following to assign an idea to:

Arial
.... Arial Plain
.... Arial Bold
.... Arial Italic

Courier
.... Courier Plain
.... Courier Bold
.... Courier Italic

Gothic
.... Gothic Plain
.... Gothic Bold
.... Gothic Italic

Palatino
.... Palatino Plain
.... Palatino Bold
.... Palatino Italic

Times
.... Times Plain
.... Times Bold
.... Times Italic

You can only choose one line from all of the above.

Why would someone want to have something like:

Font
.... Arial
.... Courier
.... Gothic
.... Palatino
.... Times

Style:
.... Plain
.... Bold
.... Italic

And assign both a font and a style, or heaven forbid more than one font and more than one style to an idea. Nonsense.

To summarize: simply just don't apply two fonts to the same idea, and once you pick a font you may pick a style but only one style. No mixing plain with bold or italics.

If you were allowed to choose more than one font and style for an idea you will only confuse yourself, and if you are really disciplined one font / idea is the best way for you to do things anyway. All ideas are best expressed in that way.

(and DON'T even get me started on font size and font color !!!)