I love that quote, one of my favorites of Jobs.
I completely agree with you, but this feature is more like search by swiping down in main window, not like having a flashlight built in in your iPhone, don’t you think?
The feature was requested from how many years.
1 Like
Yes, there are probably hundreds of feature requests in the Omni feature request database. Multiple contexts is one of them. But I guess there are other feature requests that have gotten more votes or are more critical to solve. Data loss, syncing issues, and bug crashes probably take a higher priority over adding more features. Some folks will probably get disappointed that other features are implemented first over multiple contexts, custom themes, etc. We can read about some of the dismay when OmniFocus for Apple Watch was demoed. OmniFocus will get left behind if they didn’t work on the Apple Watch app. There are already preview trailers of Wunderlist and Things for the Apple Watch.
I agree about everything you say. I don’t care about the design, themes, and new slick green icons. I care only about the time. “It’s really clear that the most precious resource we all have is time” –Steve Jobs
I agree about the simplicity necessary. A lot of options could make a software for quick daily processing more of a Boeing cockpit. I do understand that there has to be balance. I think multiple contexts fall within that balance.
And again, it’s not about, “do it now, I want it now,” like a screaming kid in a grocery store. It’s just no one knows anything and the nature of the OF as a product is not like Apple products, where the reason they do that is to sell more by gaining a lot of media buzz, speculations and rumors. OF is a time management and planning tool, and for many the tool.
Granted, my tone was critical. I would say cynical rather than hostile. I could rephrase it as “In the meantime … multiple contexts, we are left guessing among …”.
The “we know better than you do” tone was rather strong in the old forums IMO. I might say it bordered on condescending. Is this really the best way to approach the question?
I picture a different dialog with strong voices saying no to multiple contexts and the discussions ending at that point.
My inversion of your statement is this … Folks who want multiple contexts in OF are being held hostage via an absence of dialog from OG at the expense of a perception that a specific group may raise a ruckus in the future? Hmmmm …? Is this really the best way to approach the question?
Consider these three options for the “team discussions” about the “foreseeable future” of including multiple contexts as a feature in OF …
-
Option 1: Multiple contexts are not a priority at all or are an exceptionally low priority. The plans on this are likely to remain this way regardless of all else. At the expense of keeping (the few unhappy folks) who want them from raising a ruckus, let’s just keep quiet about it.
-
Option 2: Multiple contexts are on the planning board to include once the database of OF is updated at the next major release version. At the expense of keeping the (orthodox) GTD users from raising a ruckus, let’s just keep quiet about it.
-
Option 3: Maybe we will or maybe we won’t include multiple contexts. We really don’t see the value in them, we can’t see why anyone else sees the value in them, we don’t understand reasoning of the few who continue to ask for them, strict GTD doesn’t require them, they are too difficult to include right now, and even when the database structure is updated to make it feasible we are not sure they will be easy to include. We like the software the way it is, we would be confused or overwhelmed when we would have to make the required changes, and we have too many other things on our plate to figure out an effective strategy/plan that far ahead. When the market makes this feature profitable for us and/or when we decide otherwise and/or when pigs fly, we will include them. Or perhaps we won’t include them because they will still just be a niche request. At the expense of appearing as though we really have no long term plan about this idea, let’s just keep quiet about it.
Which case best fits the observations? Or do you have a different case?
–
JJW
2 Likes
The explicit statement is not to be found, certainly not from OG. The implications are there as I read between the lines of other postings.
–
JJW
I contend, the market-need in task/project management applications has evolved beyond the orthodox GTD philosophy of one single context always fits all needs, implementation of multiple contexts in OF is an idea long-past being somewhat overdue, building such a targeted feature in to OF is as simple as including a repeat loop to the database search function that dumps content to the display (potentially even sans a database rebuild), and the inclusion of such in OF is not the makings of “a better mess” rather it is the makings of a far better product.
–
JJW
As I have thought about this more, the case where I want multiple contexts the most is to set up associations to do something with someone.
- call + my spouse
- call + Joe
- email + Joe
- do + my church group
- errands + my church group
- …
I think the additional someone is called a Resource in PM language.
The reason I want multiple contexts is because I want to be able to assign an action and a resource to tasks.
After that, I want to be able to define perspectives that have action + resources as logical combinations (call .AND. Joe), (errands .NOT. church group).
–
JJW
2 Likes
I agree with this justification for multiple contexts/tags however you want to refer to them. I would also add that the most recent version of 2DO actually achieves this very well using tags and smart lists. The smart lists are extremely powerful and tags are unlimited. I think poor application of tags can definitely get messy but I think the software/system should afford the user the flexibility to decide. Somewhere up this thread I saw some disparaging comments about 2DO being “a joke”. I have to say that the most recent iteration is IMHO very well implemented and very feature rich. So much so that I have been vacillating between it and OF2 for a while now.
2 Likes
2Do has been getting some favorable reviews lately. I own a copy and I’m tempted to try it again because I’m pretty underwhelmed with OF2.
The problem I have is getting my stuff out of OF2 and into 2Do. I’ve searched for some scripts to accomplish this, but have not found anyway to do this. I’m not going to cut an paste my OF stuff into 2Do. I’m trying to be more productive and I already waste enough time reading productivity forums. :)
Yes, one day we hope to have multiple contexts in OmniFocus. Hopefully sooner than later. I have been wanting to experiment with 2Do and tags. But I think I’ll need to find some more spare time. It’s “busy” season for me with the Spring activities and workload.
I agree wholeheartedly with the People and Resources tag. That should bridge the gap to a more
robust task manager. For the moment, OmniFocus seems geared towards personal task management. Team collaboration and OmniPlan linking seems to be a bit further into the future.
A long time ago, I had submitted a feature request for more smart perspectives with better search capabilities - similar to 2Do’s smart lists or iTunes smart playlist (find all music with genre = “classical” that hasn’t been played in the last 7 days".
Maybe enough people can vote in for a “smart” perspective that has conditional criteria selection?
2 Likes
Speaking of wishing for more features, I thought I’d share this post:
https://todoist.com/Support/show/30198/
This is from the ToDoist forums with someone requesting for Start Dates (or Defer Dates in the OmniFocus vocabulary).
Users have been asking for this feature for a long time now and it sounds like it hasn’t really been resolved yet as of March 2015.
Heck. even Cultured Code has taken just as long to implement nested projects (hint: they still haven’t implemented it yet).
1 Like
My quick review left me realizing the clarity of defined sequential / parallel project layouts, the beauty of multiple-depth sub-folders, and the power of multiple-depth nested action groups that are in OF.
Yep. Every “personal” task manager seems to be heading at their own pace toward a common set of features. I wonder when Things will have parallel versus sequential projects. IMHO, that implementation might steal some real thunder from the OF user base.
–
JJW
Funny there- I’d be the first to vote for this. Right after limiting alcohol consumption per capita. But I can guess what the comment was supposed to demonstrate. Motivation to do something is probably to a higher degree emotionally related than You’d like to have it. Lack of the desire to accomplish something is reason number one for procrastination.
I tried to think myself into your dream app, but honestly, it didn’t work so well. Some of the points are simply not that easy to argument for or against without actually having an app you could really test it on. Testing other apps though is pretty easy with OF, since You can easily export your tasks as a txt format from within OF (file menu/ export).
Taken together, I don’t get the impression that any of these points develop anywhere- so I’ll just leave it at that.
If you think OmniFocus has the most options think again- and take a close look at 2Do. Again, not that a wealth of options is solving anything for you.
Option 4: Multiple contexts are not fitting our general idea of focusing according to GTD. It would therefore water down one of the persistent hallmarks that keep many of our customers productive.
We need to be aware that we are a very special minority making the effort of discussing these matters to such an exhaustive dimension (discourse is really swell to use for that;-)…). Not that we do not count at all, I am sure Omni is valuing our discussions and contributions a lot, since it is giving them perspective on where the edge of their apps conflicts with customer needs.
This is just Option 1 with some polite (and likely unsustainable) reasoning (guessing) attached to it.
We could apply the same reasoning behind the duration field, determine that it is mostly a distraction (only a vocal minority use it), and therefore eliminate it from OF. All the better to focus.
Alternatively, we might start an entire “big brother knows best” thread (which we almost already have).
But, we have to ask before we go there, can multiple contexts be designed in OF in a way to be entirely unobtrusive? IOW, can this feature be designed in OF in a way that is (entirely) invisible to those who do not want/need it yet (readily) present for those who do want/need it? I think the ability to choose multiple contexts can be designed in to OF in an accessible yet unobtrusive way (whether I trust that Omni knows how to do such efficient design is another question). So, I have to continually ask (of Omni) … What the heck is the big deal about not yet including the option to select multiple contexts, and why are you so gosh-darn tight-lipped about your plans with regard to this feature?
The request for multiple contexts is not anywhere in the same league as, for example, a request to have unlimited access to alcohol or fast cars so that we can readily kill ourselves (and others) if we want. It is a request to improve the functionality of OF, even if for a vocal few, while respecting the integrity of OF as it used by the larger, happy majority of folks. We do not need to start a thread about big brother protecting us from abusing ourselves over some purist view of GTD. We need instead to continue insistently asking why Omni is persistently silent about their plans to include this feature in a reasonable way.
–
JJW
3 Likes
I completely understand why the Omni folks don’t make any concrete statements concerning their plans for supporting multiple contexts and why they don’t go into detail on their position concerning the matter:
- They’ve done the research and internally they probably know where it fits in in their plans for the future.
- They have a bunch of other stuff that they have decided to take care of first, some of which some of their customers think is important, some of which some of their customers think is unimportant.
- They’ve seen how much discussion this topic produces and they know that the more they say about it, the more people are going to want more feedback from them.
- They don’t have the man power it would take to keep up their own presence in this endless, interminable, never-ending, what-if, but-I-think-this-is-what-they’re-doing, goes-on-forever-without-ceasing-no-matter-what-anyone-says, unproductive discussion.
I’m astounded at how much time people have invested in this discussion that they could have used in “getting real things done”.
Face it, folks. Everybody, including Omni, knows that there are plenty of people who want multiple context support. Right now it’s not supported. Maybe it will be someday, maybe it won’t. In the meantime, if there is another application that provides more of what you want/need, use it. If Omnifocus does the best job, use it. Going on and on about this and what Omni is thinking and what it’s not planning is not going to make multiple contexts happen any sooner.
2 Likes
This is actually a reasonable argument to keep quiet. It is the response “We do not know yet what we will do about multiple contexts, and we do not want to have to fight a rumor mill that we will inevitably start if we talk about it without concrete plans”.
It is my Option 3 with some polite reasoning (guessing).
We do have some free time every once in a while. :-)
–
JJW
1 Like
Ironically, if they would start crowdsourcing, Omni would solve their problems quicker.
However to do that, Omni would have to share information.
We would have more with multiple contexts ;-)
It sounds like several folks might not have seen my latest posts on this subject from our old forums:
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=129682&postcount=74
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=129683&postcount=75
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=129690&postcount=78
Our current plan is to make these changes during the OmniFocus 2 development cycle. But we do have some higher priorities, as outlined in my blog post from January about our plans for 2015. Reviewing the portions of that post relevant to OmniFocus:
Our biggest project this last quarter was adapting all the features of OmniFocus for iPad so they also work on iPhone. Those of you who follow my updates on Twitter (@kcase) probably already know this, but the free universal update to OmniFocus for iPad ships tomorrow, bringing Review and full support for custom perspectives to the iPhone for the first time.
I think most of you know that we’ve already shipped this Yosemite update as OmniFocus 2.1.
OmniFocus 2.1 was mostly focused on Yosemite and stability, but also made a few steps towards improving the efficiency of the Mac interface (e.g., it’s now possible to detach the View Options popover and to make windows more narrow).
So, yes, this stuff is coming in the v2 development cycle. But before we get to schema changes (making it impossible to sync with OmniFocus 1), we want all our OmniFocus 1 customers to feel comfortable upgrading—so our current priority is to make the interface more customizable.
15 Likes
