[Mario.Batz@cern.ch]

Hi,

it would be great if a feature that existed it Kinkless would come back to OF:
only the contexts that actually have a taks associated show up in the context view.

I find it quiet perturbing to habe to check each single context to find out whether the is a task attached.

[Athanasius]

Yeah, at first I thought this was what was meant by "active" contexts, but turns out that's just those you've manually specified are inactive, which is plain silly.

So, add a vote for contexts becoming inactive based on no current actions, please Omni.

[markbrown00]

i get around this by setting my filter to group by context, then deselecting all contexts (so as to show all tasks at once)

[gofast]

Originally Posted by Athanasius

Yeah, at first I thought this was what was meant by "active" contexts, but turns out that's just those you've manually specified are inactive, which is plain silly.

So, add a vote for contexts becoming inactive based on no current actions, please Omni.

One problem here is with syncing - if it's inactive, the category gets deleted in iCal. Now, I'm using mailtags to make emails into todos in iCal in a category called OF: iCal Inbound. When I sync iCal and OF, those todos get dumped to my OF inbox for processing. If I process them to the proper contexts, my iCal Inbound context will be empty and go into inactive mode, which will delete the category from iCal at the next sync, thereby nuking any todos that have been subsequently processed from Mail.app. Yes, I know it's kludgy.

Of course, I'd like inactive contexts to sync for this reason so I can hide the actual context from the list - but that's weird too.

Ach - this could all be alleviated by being able to dump emails to OF with a keystroke which I'm betting will appear at some point. I mean, there has to be a way to easily process a mail inbox at some point....

[wkoffel]

Originally Posted by markbrown00

i get around this by setting my filter to group by context, then deselecting all contexts (so as to show all tasks at once)

This is an interesting workaround, but it's still quite distracting to see contexts with no next actions in them lingering about on the side on this view. I'll put in a vote for a more elegant solution here. I'd be more than happy with a 3rd filter in the contexts.

"All Contexts"
"Active Contexts"
"Contexts with Available Actions"

[Craig]

Originally Posted by wkoffel

I'd be more than happy with a 3rd filter in the contexts.

"All Contexts"
"Active Contexts"
"Contexts with Available Actions"

That strikes me as an elegant solution, though I would prefer it key to the current filter settings: So if instead of "Available" the filter is set to, say, "Remaining" (or "Flagged"), the context selector would allow you to show only Contexts with Remaining (or Flagged) Actions.

Essentially what it would be is a setting for "Contexts with Visible Actions" or "Nonempty Contexts" or "Populated Contexts." These are pretty terrible labels but you get the idea...

[wkoffel]

Originally Posted by Craig

That strikes me as an elegant solution, though I would prefer it key to the current filter settings: So if instead of "Available" the filter is set to, say, "Remaining" (or "Flagged"), the context selector would allow you to show only Contexts with Remaining (or Flagged) Actions.

Essentially what it would be is a setting for "Contexts with Visible Actions" or "Nonempty Contexts" or "Populated Contexts." These are pretty terrible labels but you get the idea...

Perfect for me Craig, great extension to my idea. Anyone want to jump on this ship and make some noise? ;-)

[markbrown00]

Originally Posted by Craig

That strikes me as an elegant solution, though I would prefer it key to the current filter settings: So if instead of "Available" the filter is set to, say, "Remaining" (or "Flagged"), the context selector would allow you to show only Contexts with Remaining (or Flagged) Actions.

Essentially what it would be is a setting for "Contexts with Visible Actions" or "Nonempty Contexts" or "Populated Contexts." These are pretty terrible labels but you get the idea...

Brilliant. I'd love that. It would give you a new layer of information. For example, if your 'work' context is not visable in that view, you may as well just stay home that day.

How would this idea work with nested contexts? if my superordinate context (e.g., 'work') has no visible actions directly inside it, but a sub-context (e.g., 'work>phone') does, then what is visible in the context sidebar?

[wkoffel]

Originally Posted by markbrown00

Brilliant. I'd love that. It would give you a new layer of information. For example, if your 'work' context is not visable in that view, you may as well just stay home that day.

How would this idea work with nested contexts? if my superordinate context (e.g., 'work') has no visible actions directly inside it, but a sub-context (e.g., 'work>phone') does, then what is visible in the context sidebar?

Mark, I'd say that all supercontexts would also appear. Keep it simple. If you have a "work>phone" context actionable item, I think it's reasonable to say you have a "work" context item as well.

[markbrown00]

Another thought:

would a count of the number of tasks inside a context work instead of adjustible context display conditions?

For example, the context side bar might look like this:

Work (3)
- calls (2)
- briefing (1)
Home (1)
- Mac
- Garden (1)