[Ken Case]

We do plan to let you place arbitrary metadata on projects, tasks, and contexts, so yes, you could use a metadata field to add your own tags to things.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

We do plan to let you place arbitrary metadata on projects, tasks, and contexts, so yes, you could use a metadata field to add your own tags to things.

Will there be a way to display the metadata in the interface?

I use the conduit setting domains in OmniOutliner for metadata in my OO scripts, but the user interface doesn't (automatically) reflect the metadata values.

It would be great if there was a way in OF to adjust which metadata fields were displayed for each task and project. I'm imagining something like a row inspector that includes a list of the metadata fields with checkboxes to toggle their display. Also useful would be conditional styles predicated on the presence of particular metadata, e.g., "mytags contains 'billable'" or "delegee is not empty".

Those might not be 1.0 features, but I hope the architecture would support their future addition.

[Ken Case]

That's definitely the direction we're headed with metadata, though I'm not sure how much of that will make it into 1.0.

I don't know if you've seen how we handle metadata in OmniPlan, but there we expose the metadata both in the inspectors and through additional columns (you can add custom columns based on your custom metadata keys).

I should mention a complication, though: OmniPlan has the luxury of having a unified model for every row, while OmniFocus actually has several different models mixed in the same outline—with inbox items, tasks, projects, and folders all having different sets of columns (e.g. inbox items have a project column). This makes column customization somewhat more complicated...

But we hope to at least expose the metadata through the inspectors.

[jelmore]

Originally Posted by michelle

Ok . . . I didn't give a great example. I should have put calls at the top of the hierarchy (Calls>Office>Fred). But it shouldn't matter because contexts will be completely customizable to fit your workflow. I just wanted to throw the idea of hierarchies out there. We are considering doing tags as well, but I'm not sure it will make it into 1.0.

I assume that you mean we can have nested contexts, and be able to "focus" on Calls and see everything in every sub-context below it. If I understand correctly, this would be great; I'm trying to use iGTD, and this is a huge stumbling block for me.

I can see some use for tags as well. Even though OmniFocus is aimed at being a GTD application, some people might find tagging more useful than hierarcial contexts. (And in the end, it's about being productive, not slavishly adhering to a single methodology, right?)

[Blatchara]

In response to those who want to look at tasks from multiple contexts, why not command-click on the contexts to select more than one (non-contiguous selection)? It works for me, and I get a list that can be further grouped and sorted as usual by the filter bar. I had remembered noticing this earlier as one of those beautiful touches that you don't always expect to be implemented at this stage.
There's a much more complicated question in this thread also, but I think this answers the multiple context issue.

[brab]

Originally Posted by Blatchara

In response to those who want to look at tasks from multiple contexts, why not command-click on the contexts to select more than one (non-contiguous selection)? It works for me, and I get a list that can be further grouped and sorted as usual by the filter bar. I had remembered noticing this earlier as one of those beautiful touches that you don't always expect to be implemented at this stage.
There's a much more complicated question in this thread also, but I think this answers the multiple context issue.

This is exactly how I deal with this. I used to have a "computer" context, with three sub-contexts corresponding to the names of my three computers. I then realized that this would not work as tasks would flow upward and not downward: clicking on a specific computer would give me only those tasks for this computer (and not the ones not related to a specific computer), and clicking on "computer" would give me every computer tasks, even those requiring a specific machine.

I now have a flat approach, and when I'm at a computer I command select the generic "computer" context as well as the specific machine I'm at.

[johnrover]

I've two more real life scenarios I've been running into using OmniFocus

I need to pickup a big outdoor trash can. I can do that at home depot or at target. The "@HomeDepot" and "@Target" contexts are both nexted in my "@errands" context, but they are on opposite ends of town.

I need to pickup RJ45 connectors and a USB hub. I can do that when "@shopping online", which is nested in my "@weekend –> @laptop" context, or at the computer store on the corner. "@Mikey's Computer" is nexted in the "@erands" context.

I need this task to show up in both contexts. Life is crazy unpredictable, and I don't know where I'll be first.

[brooce]

When in doubt, stick to GTD principles.

By invoking "I'm in multiple contexts", one discards GTD in favor of a simple todo list.

That's not GTD, and it doesn't belong in OmniFocus.

[kmarkley]

Originally Posted by brooce

By invoking "I'm in multiple contexts", one discards GTD in favor of a simple todo list.

I think johnrover isn't saying "I'm in multiple contexts" so much as saying "This task could be completed in multiple contexts".

I don't know if that's any more/less GTD, but it is different.

[LizPf]

Originally Posted by johnrover

I need to pickup a big outdoor trash can. I can do that at home depot or at target. The "@HomeDepot" and "@Target" contexts are both nexted in my "@errands" context, but they are on opposite ends of town.

I have a lot of things like this -- exactly like this.

I use the nested projects for stores, instead of contexts.
At the moment, my Shopping folder has:
- a group of unrelated items I need to buy, mostly online
- an ongoing list for IKEA, an hour to the south
- an ongoing list for LL Bean, several hours to the north

My contexts are also a nest. Topmost is Errands, then the 5 different directions with stores I go to. [Yes, five. In New England, the roads use alternate dimensions.] If an item needs to be bought on a northwest run, say, I assign the Northwest context. If I can get it in several directions (south for Home Despot, northeast for Tar-jay), it just gets the Errands context.

Eventually, when I print my errands list on a 3x5 card, I'll have directional items broken out, plus the general ones at the bottom. I'll print Ikea and Bean separately, if at all.

--Liz