[LizPf]

A lot of the multiple Context issues can be solved in OF by using nested contexts.

So, you can have the following:

Calls
Work
House Management
Kid-related
Personal

To see all your calls select Calls, to see House and Kids, select both of those contexts.

However, there are a few situations that call for 2 contexts.

One might be if you want to tag actions with both a physical context AND an energy level needed to do them. So you might have Calls / High Energy (asking your ex to remember your kid's birthday this year) and Calls / Brain Dead (activating your new credit card)

You could set up energy levels for every one of your contexts, but that's a lot of hassle — much easier to have an additional context field for this info.

--Liz

[Giorgio Valoti]

Don’t know… You can be right.

However, I still think that the concept of contexts it’s still useful, even when we’re only working on the Mac. It’s just that it’s not easy to come up with a set of useful and clear contexts.

Some actions are tightly bound to a particular program (Mail.app, for example), but I can use Emacs all the day and do wildly different actions, as well. Or I can be on my Mac but I can’t carry out an action because I’m not on site…

[eronel]

I have heard it suggested somewhere else that in some cases, the project could be the context. Meaning that if nearly all your work can be done in one physical context, then contexts might simply be ways to cut up one long action list into shorter, more manageable lists to choose from. In such a case, slecting the project can provide the limits needed to choose what to work on next.

FWIW.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by eronel

I have heard it suggested somewhere else that in some cases, the project could be the context.
FWIW.

This is how LifeBalance works. It has a single list of contexts (“places“, as they are called there), but you can include any number of them in any other. Personally I am abandoning LB for OF for any number of reasons, but this - or something like it - is one feature I’m missing a lot.

Btw, for those who haven’t found it, there’s a very active thread specifically on the topic of multiple contexts at http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=5787.

[eronel]

Originally Posted by mcoad

This is how LifeBalance works. It has a single list of contexts (“places“, as they are called there), but you can include any number of them in any other.

I liked that about LB too. Very flexible places/contexts.

That's not what I meant in this case though. What I meant is that sometimes if your context list is too long to serve as a good menu to choose from, you break it up into more finely defined contexts. Sometimes you can't, though, and then a good choice can be to just work out of the list of actions for whatever project you want to work on. Hmmmm.... maybe that's obvious, but it's certainly not GTD dogma.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by eronel

I liked that about LB too. Very flexible places/contexts.

That's not what I meant in this case though. What I meant is that sometimes if your context list is too long to serve as a good menu to choose from, you break it up into more finely defined contexts. Sometimes you can't, though, and then a good choice can be to just work out of the list of actions for whatever project you want to work on. Hmmmm.... maybe that's obvious, but it's certainly not GTD dogma.

Gotcha. Quite agree. And dogma is there to be defied... The great thing is to work out what’s best for you, and if “good practice” helps then well and good, but if not, roll your own. Seems obvious to me that often there will be projects and contexts with the same name depending on need. Why do people get so hung up about such things? Hey ho... Anyway, all this is why we need multiple contexts, and pronto...