Quote:
Originally Posted by wdiadamo
Re-reading my post, it does sound more critical than I meant it to.
|
Funny, I have much the same response to re-reading mine :-)
Quote:
All this is a long way of asking, how do you break things down? I have tried the "true GTD" of where or what you need to accomplish a task, and have tried variations discussed here, such as Sven's: http://simplicityisbliss.com/post/15...ke-on-contexts, but didn't love that either.
whpalmer, you seem to have things broken down into about 80 contexts, and you seem OK with having 1661 in one. How do you deal with being confident that you are working on the right thing, or more importantly, not missing something?
|
Well, what works for me might not work as well for anyone else, of course. That ginormous context of mine is tasks that can be done on the internet, that needn't be done on any particular machine. Quite a few of them are pointers to Omni Forum posts that I want to read or answer, or Omni bug reports. Even if I took those out, though, there's still a big range of tasks in that context.
I rely on dates, flags and reviews to keep the right things bubbling along. Those tasks have to come from some project (I have the CLI option set that makes my Inbox tasks not actionable, and the preferences option that requires both a project and context to be set before sweeping a task out of the Inbox). If I keep doing my reviews every day or so, that keeps my eyeballs on the projects and I know what I should be doing and what is or isn't going well. Projects or tasks which need attention now get flagged and possibly have their review interval shortened. Due dates are used for anything that has a due date associated with it. This is all pretty much independent of the number of contexts in play.
Quote:
Finally, as for the tweaking, I think my frustration comes from the fact that Omni was pushing out developments on a regular basis and that has slowed; Ken Case himself discussed this somewhere, when he said, in essence, that the development of the iPhone and iPad versions took precedence. That's fine, and I understand and appreciate the need to allocate resources effectively; I would, however love to have the forecast view on my Computer. As for the flagship product remark, that was based, perhaps erroneously, on Case's comments, that OF was not the company's biggest revenue producer. It was not meant as a slam, or a suggestion that OF was somehow the red-headed step child of Omni, but just acknowledging the fact that Omni was, apparently, assigning their resources in the most effective, and presumably, profitable, way possible, as they should. It's a business, and I want them to make money. My rant above was, ironically, that I wish they would come up with a 2.0 so they might propel me out of my self created malaise and take more of my cash.
|
I interpreted things a bit differently than you did; my take was that Ken was saying it was more important to get all of the various iPad apps shipping, but that he wasn't necessarily saying that the iPad apps were now more important than the corresponding Mac apps going forward. I think you want to get the iPad apps all out there regardless of which of iOS/OS X you see as being more important to the bottom line. From a business perspective, it broadens the customer base, and from a customer perspective, it gets new blood into the products (Forecast view, for example, even though it isn't yet in the Mac product, has gotten such a warm reception that I don't think there's any chance it won't make it to the Mac).
Quote:
Again, whpalmer, I want to express that I do appreciate your comments and input, and will continue to use, and appreciate, OF. I am just trying to learn to use it better.
|
You're welcome, of course! I like helping people, but I've got my own selfish motivation, too — as Seneca said, "by teaching, we learn". Having a vigorous discussion of what others dislike about OmniFocus provides more food for thought than a thread where everyone is reporting "yup, works for me!" :-)