[ksrhee]

Originally Posted by OOO

Although I'm a devout "single contexter" (as well as a hardcore "software minimalist"), I do agree that there is nothing in GTD defines a context one way or another. In fact, I believe DA says that you can use NO contexts (i.e. a plain to-do list) if you don't have a lot of actions. And in the "GTD templates" that he sells (a set of cards that summarizes GTD), context is basically mentioned in half a sentence, along with the other criteria for determining what to do next. I suspect if you asked DA about multiple contexts he'd say something like "whatever works for you, just don't let your project management become another project itself". (I guess I'd fail this one because I DO have a bucket in OmniFocus called "OmniFocus feedback").

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

[Journey]

Originally Posted by ksrhee

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

The Getting Things Done methodology by DA as described in the book doesn't say how he would file things if it's done on the computer. DA has some kind of forum on his website for a monthly fee. I may sign up for it for a few months. It would be interesting to get his perspective on this.

Even so, the originator of a methodology has an opinion, and a user of the methodology could have an opinion that is just as valid.

I looked at the Palm PDA program Bonsai tonight and interestingly, it has a keyword column that can have multiple values. It's perfect for contexts. It even allows contexts to be in categories, so all my People contexts could go in a category, all my Place contexts could go in a category, etc.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by ksrhee

You are right. DA never comes out and states this, but he does infer this through the following passage:

"Over many years I have discovered that the best way to be reminded of an "as soon as I can" action is by the particular context required for that action— that is, either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete it. For instance, if the action requires a computer, it should go on an "At Computer" list. If your action demands that you be out in your car driving around (such as stopping by the bank or going to the hardware store), the "Errands" list would be the appropriate place to track it. If the next step is to talk about something face-to-face with your partner Emily, putting it into an "Emily" folder or list makes the most sense.", [Allen, David, Getting Things Done]

But this just begs the question. Obviously it’s right as far as it goes, but what about those many cases when there simply isn’t a single particular context, but others that serve just as well and there’s no way of defining which is best and no way of knowing which you will be in first. What do you do - toss a coin? Spent valuable time wracking your brains to twist your system so you can force the task into one? Repeat the task in all the contexts and then have to remember to go back and mark them all as done? Risk forgetting the task because it’s locked into another context than the one you’re in? This isn’t the way to get things done. The answer is obvious: put it in the two or three appropriate contexts, and when you tick it off it is marked as done in all. What is the problem with this? It’s the way several of the most used GTD apps work, and it’s significant that DA never states otherwise, whatever implications you may see in this passage.

[jasong]

I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be. Part of that is that GTD is supposed to get you to "think" a certain way about how you approach your tasks, and one way it gets you to do that is to make you think about which context you need to accomplish a very physical action.

I certainly see the value of multiple contexts and there've been times when I wanted to stick an action into multiple contexts because I couldn't decide which one was best (or because a couple appeared equally useful).

Not having those multiple contexts forced me to either leave the item unprocessed (because I hadn't yet thought it out fully enough to act on it) or think about it some more, often breaking it down into additional actions which had very obvious (single) contexts.

I think much of the argument comes down to this approach. Yes, multiple contexts are extremely valuable, but they may lead to a breakdown in now some think about their actions. (Even if it's an option you must turn on, it's a temptation to many.)

I'd love to see how multiple contexts might affect how we process our stuff, and if it makes us more or less productive.

[Journey]

Originally Posted by jasong

I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be. Part of that is that GTD is supposed to get you to "think" a certain way about how you approach your tasks, and one way it gets you to do that is to make you think about which context you need to accomplish a very physical action.

For a paper system one context / action makes sense. On paper, you would have to duplicate the action in order to put it into multiple contexts.

This problem does not exist on the computer. Putting something into multiple contexts isn't a case of having to duplicate the activity. It's simply selecting all the contexts into which the activity needs to fall.

As far as GTD "getting you to think a certain way about how you approach your tasks", yes -- the "thinking" involved is to identify the context(s). On paper, one context. On the computer, it could be multiple contexts. If I have an activity that falls naturally into more than one context (plenty of examples already provided), then I think in the GTD way and assign them that way making use of the computer to be able to have one activity and all its contexts.

Also, as far as "getting you to think", a big part of GTD is to unload something and also to think about it less. With multiple contexts, processing of activities is much easier because I don't have to think about (or remember) how I artificially need to impose my activities into a one-context scheme.

Most other task and outline programs allow some way to assign multiple values, whether they call it tags, keywords, or multi-valued column. In the case of this program, context would be one area where people may want that capability. If they don't, then they only need to assign one context.

I think some people think of context mode as just another way to sort and view their project activities. If a person wants single contexts / activity, they can have that. On the other hand, with multiple contexts, a person can go into context mode and be sure that any context they look at contains all of the activities that naturally fall there.

I think user mcoad (sorry if I missed your name) has expressed it best.

I think, if this is to be implemented, that this might be the best time to do it -- alpha stage. Changes later would confuse users, and require much more explanation about how to code things (esp. if the user-interface changes a bit for selecting contexts). A change now would make any user interface changes while this is in alpha, and the alpha-testers would be up to speed on how multiple contexts work, and when it goes to 1.0 there would be many alpha testers who would understand and aid in forums how multiple contexts work.

I think it would be important to have a user preference setting for single or multiple contexts, and default it to single. That reduces confusion for the new user.

If single contexts are implemented, after 1.0 there will be users who would want multiple contexts. So, instead of this "problem" going away, it will persist, and discussion of it will persist.

If multiple contexts are implemented, this will still be discussed, but more in terms not of the limitation of the program (single contexts) but in how the program offers the option of powerful multiple contexts _if_ one wants or needs to use that.

Anway, I have to go shovel snow. It sucks to live in Wisconsin during the winter !!! 23 degrees here -- I'm jealous of all you southerners.

[mcoad]

Originally Posted by jasong

I think much of the argument comes down to this approach. Yes, multiple contexts are extremely valuable, but they may lead to a breakdown in now some think about their actions. (Even if it's an option you must turn on, it's a temptation to many.)

I'd love to see how multiple contexts might affect how we process our stuff, and if it makes us more or less productive.

I can tell you right away, in my case. They make me more productive.

But that aside, your post is fascinating, jasong, and I think you’ve put your finger right on the jugular. OF, and GTD too, are tools to help us organize our lives, not some kind of quasi-religious discipline. It’s a fine line, maybe, but what I want is for them to help me get things done, practical things in my daily life, not force me into some kind of monastical rigour in which instead of doing things I have to be wracking my brains over whether there really isn’t some other context that I haven’t thought about, or not processing tasks because I can’t think of a context, or slicing and dicing everything every which way to make it fit some scheme imposed on me by the great god, GTD. That’s crazy. GTD, and other systems like it, are a a huge help and, yes, encourage discipline in planning. But there’s discipline and discipline, and when a simple, and pretty much common-sense, set of self-help precepts start sounding more like a cross between British public school and the Spanish Inquisition, things have gone way too far.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not accusing you of this and what you say is very interesting - and, hallelujah, you’re arguing for multiple contexts (oh, come to my arms...)! But a few of your terms, and many used by others, do sound a bit like it. Sometimes they conjure up a picture of GTD, and of OF, standing over us, wagging a long finger and a whip, saying “More, you louse, break it down more! Resist temptation! You know that context is there!” And all we’re talking about is who to phone when and what would come best before something else. Really, life is too short! Give me a couple of context alternatives to toss it into and, renegade and wimp that I am, I’m done and I can go smell the roses.

Cheers

Malcolm

PS Journey, hi! Come and join us down here, just hitting summer, the smell of jasmine and under the snow of the Andean peaks still there above. Best wishes from Chile. A truly international forum!

[Journey]

Originally Posted by mcoad

Cheers

Malcolm

PS Journey, hi! Come and join us down here, just hitting summer, the smell of jasmine and under the snow of the Andean peaks still there above. Best wishes from Chile. A truly international forum!

Wow, Chile -- I'd love to join you down there -- I could get there, but where to stay is a limiting factor cost-wise. I've never been on a real vacation (and I'm 44). I have seasonal vacation in the winter time, called Seasonal Affective Disorder due to less light, and ideally I'd like to find a way to go to a different part of the U.S. (or better yet a different part of the world) during winter here.

That's a good reminder -- I should put on my thinking / creativity hat and come up with a solution. Texas, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand ...

I immersed myself in the Japanese language and in Japanese culture (even though I never went there) and became fairly good with conversational Japanese because I was a conversational partner for Japanese students coming to the U.S. I regret now though that I hadn't put that kind of effort into Spanish, which is much more practical. Hablo espanol solamente un poquito.

[joelande]

Originally Posted by Journey

For a paper system one context / action makes sense. On paper, you would have to duplicate the action in order to put it into multiple contexts.

This problem does not exist on the computer. Putting something into multiple contexts isn't a case of having to duplicate the activity. It's simply selecting all the contexts into which the activity needs to fall.

As far as GTD "getting you to think a certain way about how you approach your tasks", yes -- the "thinking" involved is to identify the context(s). On paper, one context. On the computer, it could be multiple contexts. ...

Also, as far as "getting you to think", a big part of GTD is to unload something and also to think about it less. With multiple contexts, processing of activities is much easier because I don't have to think about (or remember) how I artificially need to impose my activities into a one-context scheme.

Very well said.

I have been re-reading DA's GTD book.

He certainly is not as hard-core as some of the posters here regarding contexts.

I could not find one place that said every action has to be assigned one and only one context. Or that you had to think about each action in such excruciating detail as to assign it its one and only minimal-physical requirement context.

Most of his examples relate to assigning a context to one context because he is teaching how a person could implement the system with a low-tech, cheap, paper-based system if they wanted to.

On the other hand, he does mention more than once that it is OK to find out what works for you (as long as you stick to the core concepts).

Originally Posted by jasong

I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be.

Or perhaps they don't understand your GTD?

I wouldn't be so tightly indoctrinated...there is enough of that in the world today.

There seem to be some very smart people here, who clearly understand and have read GTD, and yet still see a benefit to tags (or multiple contexts). (And if you want to stick to doctrine, their interpretation after reading the book says that tags are OK.)

Better to talk about the features of teh software than trying to stake a claim in the ground regarding who's interpetation of GTD is the right and only one.

I really don't see why tags woudl be a problem...

If you don't want to use tags or multiple contexts, don't use 'em.

But don't take them away from the rest of us becasue you read the book better than the rest of us...

[jasong]

Originally Posted by me:
I believe the "problem" with multiple contexts comes down simply to what the understanding GTD appears to be.

Originally Posted by joelande

Or perhaps they don't understand your GTD?

I wouldn't be so tightly indoctrinated...there is enough of that in the world today.

Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't talking about "my" GTD. Some people understand GTD to be single-contexts. I didn't state my opinion. I'm not "indoctrinated" into anything (except perhaps the Cult of Macintosh).

Originally Posted by joelande

... And if you want to stick to doctrine.... stake a claim in the ground regarding who's interpetation of GTD is the right and only one.... don't take them away from the rest of us becasue you read the book better than the rest of us...

No need to get personal. I didn't say anything about sticking to doctrine, staking a claim or preventing multiple contexts. In fact, I quite clearly said I see the value for some:

I certainly see the value of multiple contexts and there've been times when I wanted to stick an action into multiple contexts because I couldn't decide which one was best (or because a couple appeared equally useful).

But not for me (based on how I use GTD).

[devn]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I'd drop it here, too.

Note that some of the steps below are extraneous or unnecessary, and I have marked them with a "^^", but for the purposes of demonstration I left my thought process in.

Create Multiple Contexts:
- create a folder "My New OmniFocus Feature" ^^
- create 2 sub-folders "@1", and "@2".
- create a project "Drink Milk" under "@1".
- give this project a task "Milk Cow".
- give this project a context "Barn".
- hold down option and drag "Drink Milk" to "@2", to copy the project and its task into our other sub-folder.

Now, I want to be be reminded of this when I'm at my barn, -or- in my field. Switch over to the context mode:

- make a new context "Multi-Context" ^^
- drag "Barn" and "Field" into "Multi-Context"
- go up to view, sort by context
- click "Multi-Context" to view all of your muti-context actions under it
- voila.

-OR-
You could do something like this if you have a common couple of contexts... Note that this will only work with two contexts, but check it out:

- go into preferences and under "Project and Context Names", make sure "Show full hierarchy, using separator" is checked
- now, create a project "Drink Milk"
-- give it a task "Milk Cow"
- switch over to context view
- create a context "Barn"
-- create a sub-contexts "Field" (where else can you milk a cow?)
- switch back to your planning view and give your "Milk Cow" task the context "Barn : Field"
- voila.

-OR-
I want to remember to milk my cow when I'm at my house, in the field, or in the barn.

- create a project "Drink Milk"
- give it a task "Milk Cow"
- give the task the context: "Barn, Field, House"

I want to remember to slaughter my pig only when I'm in the barn, or the field.

- create a project "Eat Pork"
-- give it a task "Slaughter Pig"
-- give it a context "Barn, Field"
-- give the project another task "Cook Pork"
-- give it a context "House"

- now search "Barn"
- search "Field"
- search "House"
- voila.

If you want to be clean about it, go over to context and drop your multi-contexts into an overarching context to manage them more efficiently.

Are these perfect solutions? No.

I will say this: I don't think multiple contexts are a good idea. It blurs lines between where work is supposed to occur, where you expect work to occur. In a word, it's "dirty".

If you want multiple contexts, then I think you should just be putting those tasks into an "Ambiguous" context, but that's just me...

Cheers,
Devin