So, I just came across this concept on my own recently and searched/found this thread. Saw your email and decided to respond as someone may be able to help me see things differently. Firstly - I’m not interested in tags used in titles or description/notes - the reason being the lack of autocomplete which will lead to potentially orphaned tasks (or at least lost for ‘awhile’). I appreciate it could work, but without autocomplete I don’t see myself using it.
So, onto your question:
I have a task and that task involves getting some information from a person. I can meet with that person (context person_name), I can email that person (context email), or I can phone that person (context phone). If I run into that person, then I’d like to be able to quickly look up the context of that person’s name and see all that I want to speak to them about. If I sent down to do emails, I’d like to see all the emails I need to send out, and if I am ready to work the phones, I’d like to see all the calls I could make. As it stands now, I would have to use the person’s name, because that is the ultimate source - no matter the channel I use to reach them. But it means then that if I have not run into them and it is time to do emails, that context will not come up. In fact, extend that out and I doubt I would have any email contexts unless the target is someone I would never run into (person from a company remote from my own for example). I just see multiple contexts as really nice.
I also saw someone talk about having multiple contexts for a task and how would the task be closed out? I don’t understand this thinking - if I close that task anywhere, it is closed everywhere (in fact there is only one task - it just no longer shows in any view/context/whatever as an open task).
I truly am all ears if there is a different way for me to be thinking. But I also agree that I don’t see the harm, except to Omni Group, to implement such a feature. Use it if you want, or not.
This is just my theory, and I do not think Omni peeps will agree on that, but at least I hope this topic won’t be moved or removed.
Since my first days with OF1, I think about 5 years ago, I remember tons of requests about multiple context. I think it is technically impossible for the Omni to implement that change, without completely redesigning the core, meaning writing OmniFocus from scratch.
This situation was present with ProTools software, later on purchased by AVID. There was no offline bouncing (digital rendering) of the mix. Only real time rendering. It took almost 2 decades until finally they were able to redesign the code the way it allowed a plugin to render the whole mix offline.
I think Omni is not able to implement changes, which means that there is nothing to wait for. It simply won’t happen.
OmniFocus 2 is such a powerful tool, it has completely no flexibility.
I’ll say off the bat that I’m not the biggest fan of OmniFocus’s rigidity.
However, it’s not just a task manager, it’s a GTD tool. And GTD pretty much says that each task has ONE AND ONLY ONE context. That a huge piece of the puzzle is to actually THINK about the tasks in a way, and to organize them and put them into contexts, and work in contexts, to get maximum productivity.
Having multiple contexts per task, which is more akin to tags, is more flexible. But it’s also less rigid, which can make people more likely to just make lists of tasks with tags, and then do nothing.
I don’t think for a second that the code base could never be adopted to support multiple contexts (or tags). That would probably be relatively straightforward to implement, at the expense of breaking backward compatibility with the file format (and given OF 1.x can still sync, that could be an issue). But I doubt that’s a huge deal, and certainly not something that’s 20 years worth of legacy baggage.
OF is a perfectly capable tool; if you’re willing to adopt its way of working it’s probably the most powerful tool out there. And I’d say, really, there are 2 ways of being productive:
Find a tool that works exactly the way you want to work. One that seems it’s written expressly for YOU (maybe OmniFocus isn’t that tool)
Find a tool that can do the job, and learn to use it and work the way it was designed to work. OmniFocus can certainly be that tool if you want to do this.
At any rate: I doubt Omni will remove your post, though I think it’s rather silly, and I don’t think it’s at all why OF doesn’t have multiple contexts.
Developed and published before the era of smartphones, even before iPhone 1. Things change. Perhaps time for GTD2.0.
Or maybe this time, instead of Getting Things Done, someone should write, Making Outcomes Come. MOC even sounds nicer.
Just search “contexts” on this forum and you will see how many people have “lists” of all sorts of things. As you know, to make GTD work for you it won’t happen in a weekend. For each of us it has been years of trials, errors, adjustments and modifications. And even given that, each of us is still looking for improvements. Productivity is also a demon.
Nah, I still think it’s impossible.
.3. Or go buy a tool that works.
.4. Or build the tool ▸ like many of people do with the scripts.
I’m not starting here a discussion which was done many times. I’m tired. Multiple contexts won’t happen with omni focus, period.
GTD 2.0 is basically a rewrite. It is even stated in the book. Getting Things Done 1.0 was released in 2001. David’s writing style was a bit dense when he wrote the first release and can be a little tough to read. Fourteen years later, he was able to refine GTD after countless hours of client interaction and workshops. He discovered subtle issues that had surfaced long after the original publication. He added a few chapters that discusses his new discoveries and includes some stuff about neuroscience and the brain’s thinking as it relates to GTD. But the basic concepts still apply. He changed the vocabulary a little to capture the true intentions he wanted to express. Now that David has a few books on his resumé, he is better able to express his ideas now.
I don’t know if I can say this is a completely accurate declaration. It is rigid when it comes to multiple contexts. But we have seen numerous workflows and blog posts about how people use OmniFocus. There are some workflows that wouldn’t work for me but completely works for another person. I would count OmniFocus as a flexible tool.
For now, we won’t see multiple contexts because it would cause a major change to the database structure and break compatibility with OF1. Never say never. We might see multiple contexts in OF 2.5. Only the Omnifolks know. I would have to guess that this is on their whiteboard hanging in the meeting room where the coders meet. It sounds like they’re trying to find a way to implement multiple contexts among a hundred other feature requests. It all may sound straightforward and easy to implement but a change like this will most likely cause a dramatic change of direction or workflow that needs to be considered carefully. Remember that Apple wasn’t the first to market with a smart phone. But they took their time to create something that they felt would affect the marketplace. Apple wasn’t the first to market with a tablet. But they sure changed the landscape with the iPad’s introduction. I think the same goes for OmniFocus.
Omni spoke about creating general MetaData for OmniFocus (so one could assign, for example, a person to a task) years ago. OmniFocus 2 was supposed to pave the way to implement this generalized data model, by getting all the versions (iPad, iPhone, Mac) at parity. If you ask me, significant new features have not been added to OmniFocus 2 since it was released. I suspect that’s because Omni’s attention is on iOS, creating universal apps, and now the Apple Watch.
@wilsonng I mean technically inflexible. You cannot “design” you own look, interface, etc. In expensive apps it is possible to some extend to move the menus around like “inspector” window. Look at Adobe.
Yes i would also like to see the return of some kind of custom appearance editor. But I think that there are other features I would rather have omnigroup work on first.
While GTD is a little outdated in terms of tools you are using to manage your stuff I am really positive on David Allen considering single contexts one of the timeless hallmarks of GTD. At MPU last year he was openly rejecting tags as means of organisation… I don’t think that this position has changed, since he was precisely referring to modern tools of organisation that use tags (evernote)
I don’t think that the reluctance on Omnis side is solely compatibility, but actually remaining true to the concept.
I would not say that anyone can blame Omni for sitting on their hands not doing anything. While your favorite feature might not be included in one app let’s not forget that there are several other apps available that need regular maintenance…
Secondly, expecting a new UI and a new db handling with every annual iteration of the Max OS is ridiculous- I am with @wilsonng that rigidity is a habit- only when not adapted to that limitation it will actually stand in your way- on the other hand integration into working procedures can make limitations a valuable and wise tool to avoid distractions.
Lastly, if you search for folks that need our pity right now look no further: Things 3 was announced december 2013… sometimes it’s just better not to set any release deadlines- in case of Things it rather became tradition. Omni is far away from this attitude, thankfully so
Just to clarify, MPU is the Mac Power User’s podcast. David Allen was on it as a guest and discussed a bit about GTD. This is October 12, 2014 podcast.
I think tags are OK if used sparingly. I experimented with tags in Cultured Code’s Things. I had to make sure that I wasn’t complicating my setup by using as few tags as possible. I would use meaningful tags that had impact and not just tag everything under the sun.
I recently had a losing battle with tags inside Apple Aperture. I would tag and describe everything in a picture:
As an example, I recently had with tags in Aperture. But it was mostly useless. Eventually, I resolved to just tagging important things. Mostly, the tags I had were the names of my family members and important people in my life. Aperture had already sorted out my photos by months. So I can guess when my daughter’s birthday parties occurred. I already know that the Christmas parties happen in December. I didn’t really need to tag those.
Tags are often used as a general tool to fill in gaps that software doesn’t take into account. Tags are so easily mis-used and abused and can cause more friction than needed. Tags seems to be the hot buzzword these days. But it isn’t the cure-all that some may think it is.
Right now, I’m dipping my toes into 2Do and exploring alternative workflows with tags. But I always have to remember to use as few tags as possible and avoid over-tagging anything.
@wilsonng that was only an example. Another example would be visibility of the different types of “fields” in the task, so you can tab it, like Estimated Time. Another one would be completely lack of color options for anything besides notes, which are still not worth to deal. Inflexibility means doing things the Omni way, “and if you don’t like it, go and buy Things 3, because it doesn’t matter how much time you have invested, or how much money you have spent on Omni” (my restated version of @mat_rheincomment)
@mat_rhein
Rigid ≠ Flexible
Rigidity is a good character trait to possess for a person. For matters like technology and software, it’s called inflexibility. That means the user is forced to do certain things, certain way. Surprisingly, this also means being unable to do particular things, particular way. I do not see rigidness of the software, where I have to learn AppleScript to accomplish something (requested from years).
So have you found any software package that does what you want? Anything that is flexible enough for you? I am curious to see other programs out there. As I said earlier, I am visiting the 2Do app to see if there is something I am missing with tags. So far, I can see that I could work with 2Do. But I have already learned how to use OF2.
We will find limits and rigidity is every program. Every program operates in a certain way and we learn how to use it as the developer allows. We put in feature requests to change something and hopefully the developer will consider it and incorporate it into the next release. The simpler the program, the easier it is to understand how to use it. OF2 is definitely powerful and can be overwhelming to somebody who is using it for the first time. I know it took me a few tries after quitting it, going to another program, and then returning back to OF2.
The only other thing to do is to create your own task manager that would behave as you want it to.
Things 3? If you thought Omnigroup was slow with OmniFocus development, you only have to see that Things 3 was promised many years ago as @mat_rhein said in a previous post. The 2Do app finally come out with version 3 for iOS after 2 years of the previous release. The Mac version of 2Do is still not yet here.
2Do ▸ a pen and paper have more options than that app. This app is a joke. I need more options, not for more complication, but for better process. The process is the key.
The best bet would be Nozbe, but it requires everything being done by clicks, not keyboard. No time for that.
Simple doesn’t mean easy. However OF isn’t simple, nor easy, or cheap. Pro version has perspectives, which 2Do etc user doesn’t need. Most of these people would be happy with reminders if they knew it exists and it’s “advanced” features.
I don’t think we use OF for the things other software don’t have, but for what OF has and what you can do with it.
I found many workarounds for OF. But none of them could possibly implement the aristocracy, which would be OF2Pro with Multi-context. I could even pay extra for OF2 Pro-Pro to have it. I would say this feature would be worth for me $2000, maybe $3000 if I could pay it in installments. $300? No question. I’m first to buy.
Things like Things 3, Wunderlist 4, MilkMyCow 7 and Forgetters aren’t the software people like us use, need, etc. That is why so many people is using OF, so many bloggers, OF being the symbol of GTD, AppleScripts etc. is why we use OF.
Try IQTELL. I used it in the past with success, but I need onMac app not online app. If you can handle that if an iOS app, it’s a touchdown. Better than OF in many matters.
I don’t think I can say any app is a joke. Each one focuses on a different market or adapts to different work styles.
2Do has a smart list that can resemble OF2’s perspectives. It also has the “tags” that some OF2 folks dream of. 2Do also has multiple locations support which OF2 doesn’t have.
Things 2 has a nice drag-and-drop user interface.
Asana is better for users who have to share tasks and need see the status of other people’s tasks/projects.
I don’t have much experience in ToDoist and Wunderlist except for the occasional demo that I try or the YouTube video demos that I can watch.
Send feedback to omnifocus@omnigroup.com and let your voice be heard. It may sound frustrating to see the feature requests not getting addressed immediately. Omnigroup seems more focused on bug fixes and updates to the iOS app and the Mac app. But I think it is more important to address bug fixes before adding more features.
I think that Omnigroup’s decision to phase out the iPhone app in favour of a Universal version is good news. Now, they only have to take care of two apps (Universal and iOS) instead of three apps (iPhone, iPad, Mac). Hopefully this will mean development of new OmniFocus 2 features can occur faster.
