[whalt]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

Hmm, if the perspectives were all listed in the top part of the sidebar, that would be a lot like Places. It would still be a different category of things, but the UI might actually be cleaner than the Places UI in LB. You could click a perspective and immediately see all the contexts that were included. That might actually be the best of both worlds. What do you think?

I think you're right that this could have potential. The more I think about Perspectives the more I see where they are going with this interface which I initially (and to some extent still do) thought was an unnecessary bit of contrarianism to the smart folders trend. It's just hard to fully envision until Perspectives becomes more than just a weird set of numbered menu items.

However, since LB's Places allows multiple levels of nesting, and I'm assuming Perspectives won't, it still seems like a less powerful categorization scheme although how important this turns out to be in practice remains to be seen.

Interesting stuff. I'm excited and a bit nervous to see where it all ends up

[jvas]

Any thought of supporting tags in the future?

I see this as a big void with OF vs. other competing solutions.

I am an iGTD refugee and am looking for a new home. I like the Omni Group as a company and have many of their products.

The lack of tagging, however, makes the transition difficult.

I did a search in the forums on 'tag' but found nothing.

[Lizard]

Looks like 3-letter words aren't indexed as search terms. Try 'tags'.

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by jvas

Any thought of supporting tags in the future?

You should have heard Merlin Mann at the recent OmniFocus Meetup in San Francisco. He is clearly not a fan of tagging in GTD apps. :)

You also might try searching for "multiple contexts". There was a big, long thread on it a few months ago.

-Dennis

[InAccuFacts]

Wow, tell us more about Merlin Mann and His Anti-Tag Revue!

[Cameron]

I wanted tags too, and tried using Things mainly for that reason. After a few days, I realized I didnt want or need tags and came crawling back to Omnifocus.

I didnt see what Merlin had to say about tags, but Im pretty sure he doesnt like them because it causes the user to "fiddle" with the interface too much, make it more complicated, and basically gets in the way of getting things done.

[steve]

Originally Posted by InAccuFacts

Wow, tell us more about Merlin Mann and His Anti-Tag Revue!

For me the gist of what Merlin said was that you shouldn't be spending your time working to tag all of your next actions— instead you should be working.

I think that I have abandoned the idea that I would want to tag next actions. However, I would be interested in tagging projects.

steve

[steven]

To Merlin's "Don't clutter the interface with excessive fields" point:

The arguement "stop adding fields and work now" can be applied to any point on the continuum from "single post-it with a task on it" to "huge multi-part project". "Don't invent multi-page notebooks, just do your work", "don't add field a, b, c, just work", etc.

I know it's possible to drown in too many fields, but lobbying to restrict the app's ability to group tasks/projects to less than (for example), 1) a particular person, 2) a particular location, and 3) a particular type of effort, feels too puritanical for such an evolving discipline.

I mean, multiple fields are what computers DO, Omnidudes! I'm fine with a checkbox in prefs allowing one to prune down OmniFocus' [viewable fields per record]. We'll all aspire to the Jedi GTD-fu skills of minimal fields displayed, but I have yet to be convinced that there's some sacred limit on number of fields per task.

A "tags" field is ONLY ONE FIELD, and can loosely allow many variations of GTD to flourish. I think trying to cram "multiple contexts" into OF would break it. A tag field lets you tag for people, for location, even for a (crappy) implementation of priority. In ONE FIELD - the benefits seem seem so great for the visual interface cost of a SINGLE additional field.

Not saying I'm against any of those other additional custom fields, but until you all iron out if we should be go or no-go for a priority field, or whatever --- it's TAGS. :-) (and no, not in the expanded (body) text field - that's for comments or elaborations, and way too editable to sprinkle important tags all over)

My main contexts in OF (brought over from iGTD (RIP!)) are loosely based on type of effort I apply to some need. I guess if I can't tag, some contexts will be replaced:
-<context> (<sub-contexts>)
-think (plan, define, solve)
-act (simple action, organize, errand, process)
-look (find, read, research, review)
-communicate (email, meeting, phone, question)
-info (idea, project note)

I gave up on wasting actual contexts on "web" or "mac" because it eliminates my ability to specify what I'm doing on my mac or on the web. I mean, what can't one do on their mac or on the web? Going with a primary context of "person A" or "person B" also blows up any chance (for me) at meaningful granularity. You'd have to use "Person A" at the expense of "phone" or "email", for example.

A simple "tags" field, though, would allow user to label all kinds of different actions as "web" or "person A". I wouldn't spend all day tagging, I would be super-productive®. I'm casting my imaginary vote for an iGTD-like tags field.

GTD system attempts by me: Daylite, some pre-Frictionless app I forgot, Frictionless, MS Outlook GTD plug-in (don't ask), kGTD, VooDooPad, Hogbay Notebook/Mori, text files, [Finder tagging in Tiger (with spotMeta)], MailTags, and iGTD. Over the last 2-3 years.

Also a big Omni customer: OmniWeb first (though I don't use it much these days), then Outliner, Graffle, and now OF. Love me some Omni.

[jvas]

I agree with Steven.

I have found so much emotion on the sides of "No Tags" (OmniFocus) or "All Tags" (Things) that I am completely bewildered.

It seems as though everything from politics to software design has been driven to extremes. Has middle-ground mentality completely disappeared?

I for one see the simplicity in having a bit of both. iGTD did this quite well before it went dormant.

I can give some very solid reasons why a bit of tagging mixed with a bit of hierarchy actually makes life simpler and easer to just Get Things Done.

Hierarchy is essential for organizing massive amounts of tasks/responsibilities. I use hierarchy to manage all the clients or potential clients I interact with.

I use tags to understand which accounts have leads, prospects or opportunities. I also tag things to make sure that I can quickly reference them when I prepare for or attend specific meetings (Board Meetings, Partner meetings, etc.).

Rather than move tasks around to other hierarchies, I use tags. Much easier (faster) to get things done.

I am not looking for someone to tell me a better way to organize myself. I am pretty organized and good at what I do. I have used, quite extensively, OmniFocus, Things and iGTD. The only one that truly gets out of my way is iGTD - and that is because of its middle-of-the-road approach to both hierarchy and tagging.

I have not read Merlin's post so I can only comment on my experience.

I am anxiously awaiting one of the remaining two tools (Things and OF) to break toward the middle of the road and, without abandoning their extreme loyalists (tags vs. hierarchy), ENABLE those of us who value both schools of thought.

[Ken Case]

Our plan all along has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.1 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.2.