Thanks for the explanation! I have a couple of thoughts; if they’re helpful to you, that’s great; if not, they might be helpful to someone else who is reading the discussion.
It sounds like your use of an emoji has solved the problem of quickly seeing whether a task is a single action or part of a sequential project. I have solved that problem by using an abbreviated version of the project name in actions, unless it’s obvious what project it’s part of. To return to my book review example, if I am reviewing a book by John Smith, and I needed to check whether Smith had fairly evaluated the work of a rival, I would name the task something like “Check Jones book for Smith review.” That gives me context to situate the task in a larger project.
Based on your description of working with iCal for detailed planning, I am curious to know whether you have read David Allen’s Getting Things Done, or one of the synopses of it that are available online. Allen is a proponent of using your calendar only for things that must be done, or can only be done, on a specific day or at a specific time. Aside from family events and holidays, I have three calendars I use regularly: (1) work events that are at a fixed time, (2) personal events that are a hard commitment, and (3) events I would like to attend if possible. I use all-day events for tasks that must be accomplished on a specific day, but without a specific time. I occasionally use another calendar to block out time to work on specific areas of responsibility, usually when there’s a frog I have been too reluctant to eat. Otherwise, knowing that my calendar contains only things I must do or would like to do if time permits, clearly distinguished by color, I can look at each day and week (and in really bad times, month) and decide how much time I’ll have for unscheduled tasks, and thus what I can realistically accomplish. E.g., this coming week I have two all-day meetings with only brief breaks for meals and email, and I’m flying on Friday, so I know that I’ll have only 2 work days without many scheduled commitments to get things done.
I use OmniFocus for everything that doesn’t need to be done at a specific time, on the grounds that I have a huge number of open commitments, and putting them in my calendar would just be setting myself up for having to rework a lot on those all too often occasions where something comes up unexpectedly and I have to reframe my work day or week. My Forecast perspective reminds me of what’s urgent and what commitments I already have for my time in the next few days; reviews, meanwhile, remind me of what is important but not urgent, as well as the frogs I’m avoiding. For some perspective, I currently have 67 unprocessed inbox items (I was on vacation for a couple weeks and need to process the inbox soon, but not tomorrow due to an all-day meeting), and 863 remaining actions in 139 projects. Because I do regular reviews, I don’t find that list overwhelming; if I didn’t, I might despair at the number.
Everyone is different, but I was struck by the fact you mentioned that you have “many custom perspectives” and “a huge number of tags.” I have only a handful of custom perspectives, and while my tag list has grown since OF started to allow multiple tags on an action or project, I have few that I regularly use. If your system works for you, there’s no need to change, but if you’re frustrated, I wonder whether cutting back on the time required to manage many perspectives and tags would help you feel less stressed. In particular, I wonder what advantage year and month tags like “2027” and “January” bring that can’t be handled by setting a defer or due date to January 2027.
Again, this may not be helpful to you; feel free to ignore it!
Oh, for a bit of history, I discovered Getting Things Done before OmniFocus existed. Before I discovered the Kinkless GTD set of OmniOutliner scripts that implemented GTD, I was managing my projects and tasks using a Mac program called Life Balance, from Llamagraphics. The idea behind that program was that you would put your tasks into broad categories that were important to you, such as Work, Hobbies, Relationships, Travel, etc., and it would use your task completion record to shift priorities in order to achieve balance. E.g., if you were checking off lots of things in Work and Hobbies, tasks in Relationships and Travel would gradually receive higher priority on your list. It was a great idea, but I don’t think the software implemented it that well. But I found that the GTD idea of regular reviews, including higher-level reviews every few months and a big review every year or two, encompassed the same spirit of making sure you don’t get bogged down in the daily/weekly grind. The YearCompass project is similar.
