Multiple Contexts per Task [now in TestFlight]

[eddiecoyote]

I LOVED Things 3. I cannot tell you how much I loved the crips design. I even made a love video about it on YouTube where I gushed over how I could check tasks, change defer dates, due dates, and more, with ONE HAND while drinking coffee!!! So smooth and beautiful and elegant.

BUT!

I am a Platoon Sergeant, a Training Coordinator, and do a variety of other things. When I opened my Things to see emails I needed to do, I had 54 emails. When I opened up OmniFocus, I had 5. The difference was that I have a LOT of emails that go out AFTER an event (linear projects). Such as, receive payment then email X, or, so on.

If Things 3 had linear projects I would stay with it. The friction in changing dates in OF on OS and iOS kills me. After having the joy of Things, it hurts to use OF. And did I mention search in Things? You can’t get more simpler and easier than it is on iOS.

I can’t wait to see what OF does with OF3. I hope they’re going down to the marrow of the program and keep what has made OF the best (ability to focus my chaos into pinpoint needs) but learns from the vision of other programs.

[heyscottyj]

At work, my team has started using Wrike which, as part of its architecture, treats Folders and Projects as tags. At first, this was really weird, but then I got used to it, and now I really like it, and might try this with OmniFocus.

In other words, as opposed to a hierarchical relationship from Folder -> Project -> Task, there is really just Task, and then organized by tags. In this way, a task can easily belong to multiple things for cross-referencing and organization through search and filtered views.

Key use case is that we work agile, so we plan backlogs of tasks in project tags, then make a new tag on a per-sprint basis, adding tasks to that sprint tag in sprint planning (while leaving them still tagged to the projects they “belong to”), enabling us to see our sprint tasks collectively.

Could be interesting! I definitely agree, though, on the judicious use of such tags to avoid tag-o-mania.

ScottyJ

[MiroZ]

I’m totally surprised to see that there are people who are against the multiple contexts. I follow GTD philosophies for the most part. So, maybe I have some learning to do and you can help (please). Or, maybe, like me a few months back, it’s going to take you a little while to get used to the idea of this less linear (but very helpful) way of organizing.

In OF, I use contexts for knowing when/where/etc to focus on certain tasks. For example, I have the “home” context. I know that I can open that list when I’m at home and see things I need to get done while there when I’m home. However, there are very different contexts within home. Right now, I’ll start lining those up as home:computer, home:garage, home:cleaning, home:Jessica, etc… Sometimes, to complicate things further, this is home:computer and home:Jessica. To give this a base, let’s say I do computer work together with Jessica at home and this is a focus area. Anyways, you get the idea, I’m having to do all this organization by creating “perspectives”, which is not horrible. However, you must be able to see how having multiple contexts would make this easier. Or, I’m happy to listen and get schooled on what I’m missing.

[PGR]

However, you must be able to see how having multiple contexts would make this easier. Or, I’m happy to listen and get schooled on what I’m missing.

What you’re missing is that tags may be new to OF, but they’re not new to software in general. Many people have experience trying to set up some elaborate tagging scheme in other software and have found it leads to an unmaintainable useless mess that doesn’t justify the effort one has to put into it. Of course, other people also have more positive experiences of tagging, and good luck to them, but the point is that this subject has a long history, and those in the anti-tagging camp are usually not merely guessing about the merits of tags.

More generally, with this:

I’m having to do all this organization by creating “perspectives”, which is not horrible

you aren’t considering the alternative, which is simply, “you don’t have to do all this organization”. A lot of posts seem to make an implicit assumption that if only there was this option, or that tweak, or some feature, that would enable them to more easily maintain a more complex organizational structure then staying on top of their tasks would become a lot easier. But it’s possible to maintain a serious and substantial position that it wouldn’t, and that this constant search for features is actually just a symptom arising from a failure to actually engage in one’s world, and to endlessly fiddle with one’s software as a more attractive option.

People can, of course, organize their lists however they like, but whether you agree with the position or not, there is a strong and not unreasonable position out there that this is a bad thing, not a good thing, and that starting to go down this road may not be a positive development. Some people are fond of saying that such things are just options, and that you don’t have to use it, but if you look at the history on these forums of similar “options” such as inbox in the projects list, and deferred tasks in the forecast view, then you can see that once an option appears, it rarely stops there, and there often starts to be clamoring around redesigning the whole app around what started as a simple optional workaround that those opposed to it were told they had no reason to be concerned about.

[Nick]

A lot of posts seem to make an implicit assumption that if only there was this option, or that tweak, or some feature, <…> then staying on top of their tasks would become a lot easier.

This. And the opposite - “If you need this or that feature, you’re doing it wrong”

[Nick]

I’m totally surprised to see that there are people who are against the multiple contexts.

Don’t be. People work in different ways, so some people just don’t see a need.

Where you might be a little frustrated (but not surprised, human nature being what it is) is people saying “I don’t need multiple contexts therefore nobody does and therefore they shouldn’t be available”. But that’s another story

[MiroZ]

Thank you for taking the time to write back a very thoughtful and helpful answer. I see your (and alike thinkers) point a lot better now. I certainly do sympathize with being careful not to overload a product with features. I do love simple design. I also will further question myself about the ups and downs of this feature. Having said that, there are some examples out there where they had beautiful simple software or other technology products where people practically begged for an additional feature. And, when the designers finally included it in design, it did make the product better for most people. Being a product manager myself I totally understand (especially with you reminding) that simplicity is to be defended fiercely at times. Having said that, while I’ll keep an open mind, I guess for right now I’m still thinking that I would like a life tasks focusing system (hopefully OF) that can handle more then one context parameter to help me focus. Your answer did make me feel a little better about not to have this feature though, I’ll just use my mind as a filter for what items in certain contexts are in my focus, thinking, in return, I have a simpler to use software. I’ll trust the guys at Omni, as they’ve been doing a good job for years, that they’ll really weigh this well and see if it’s important enough to have it included in the product.

[RiK]

For me as for some others here, contexts and tags are distinctly separate and should be used separately.

Indeed. I’ve always wanted tags in Omnifocus, but in addition to, not instead of contexts…

I like the GTD way of doing things for the most part, but in all other apps i use tags to assign, for example, certain resources to a task, or topics to an article I’m writing.

They are not the same as contexts in many cases and often used in parallel.

[OogieM]

I’m definitely in the camp of having multiple contexts will make life harder to manage not easier. I am not a tagger by nature either. I’ve tried tags and unless you use a carefully controlled vocabulary tags quickly become totally unwieldy. I cannot even fathom trying to keep multiple context clean and current with my volume of projects and actions that have several very different roles or AOFs.

The only place for complex tagging schemes I can see is something that has a predefined and carefully controlled vocabulary for all tags and where the software enforces use of exactly the proper tag. Simple things like singular or plural in how you enter the tags can cause headaches later when you try to actually use them. That’s why for major projects like tagging historical photos there is a defined hierarchy of tags and children tags and everyone uses the same vocabulary.

Trying to adapt that sort of structure to projects and task, especially when they are generally so fluid, seem counterproductive. How much time do you want to spend entering in any given action item vs actually getting stuff done?

[wilsonng]

2. Tags and contexts (internally in the omnifocus engine ‘contexts’ can be special type tags).
   otherwise I will have to classify tags as context tags and other tags, just a hassle, and a bother

I think we can use tags to replace contexts altogether. For tools/locations, I was thinking of using @ to indicate tools and locations:

@errands
@house
@office
@Mac

Then I might use ! To represent priorities
!high
!medium
!low

Or I can use & to represent energy levels or brain intensive work.
&high
&medium
&low

We can still use the classic contexts and also add new contexts based on our needs. This might be the way to combine tags and contexts in OmniFocus 3.

[OogieM]

The problem is how do you enter in that level of data for every item?

I’ve got over 200 active projects and over 300 available actions. There is no way to keep all that stuff straight and current and updated with such a complex system of tags & contexts. Entering in a new project or action would be come totally unwieldy. I see absolutely no benefits only downsides. To me your system looks like you are setting yourself up for disaster when things get busy and you can’t keep up with the maintenance such a complex system requires.

Have you tried to manage a similar system when you are dealing with a death in the family, or when you are handling a life threatening illness or when some other really huge significant area of focus shows up that requires you to change your entire array of projects at a moments notice while still making sure you get the critical ones done?

That happens frequently enough in my world that I know I have to keep my system clean and lean because the volume of stuff is huge.

Also I use OF for my entire life, not just work and I strictly follow the rule of a project is anything that takes 2 or more actions to complete. In a typical week I’ll complete something like 60 projects. In a really productive week I can close out over 100 in a bad week maybe only 20.

[wilsonng]

I was trying to think of how other apps do multiple tags. In my personal setup, I can’t do energy contexts. Or high brain, medium brain, or low brain contexts. I’m still thinking of single context for myself. But there is the other argument by tag supporters is that they want multiple tags. In the Omni blog post, it was stated that tags would be replacing contexts. I’m still trying to figure out how this would work in OmniFocus 3.

In MacOS Finder, I can select multiple files and change the labels on all of them. I can remove a label or add multiple labels. I can go to the Apple Pnotos app, select multiple photos and add/remove multiple keywords. The trick is to use as few keywords or tags as needed and not to overbloat it which is too easy to do when using a tag system.

I’m a supporter of the fewer tags model but there will be others who want multiple tags.

I agree that it becomes cumbersome under the weight of multiple tags. That’s why I was curious enough to theorize how this would happen. I wanted to answer the question about how to differentiate a context (location or tool) vs some other type tag.

[davidc]

It’s pretty simple guys…

Those who don’t want tags, don’t use them. Use a single context (or tag) as you always have. Those who are in favor of the new tags feature, use them and use as little or as many as you like. No one loses out by the OmniGroup adding this feature. It just expands the capabilities of OmniFocus for those requesting it. They aren’t taking away features here, just building upon them.

Getting into philosophic debates about GTD is pointless because not everyone uses GTD. Some people might only practice certain aspects of GTD while others practice none at all. The Omnigroup has the challenging task of trying to cater to many different workflows and task management styles. Adding tags is one of the ways they are overcoming this challenge. So if you’re not a fan of tags, don’t use tags…

[sprclldr]

I agree, and if I’m reading Ken’s posts correctly, nothing will really change for us single-context users. We will just assign the single context/tag like we always did.

Other users will attach several tags and that’s just fine.

In my opinion, there are a select few cases where I would assign a double context or tag. But I will be sticking to one context per task as much as I can. I really think OF’s context “limitation” is one of its greatest strengths. Forcing you to assign a single context and make that decision up front is actually much more efficient.

[claybwagner]

Agree. Some of us want them. GTD is good but it is not the only system out there. Multiple contexts / tags would help. Don’t want them? Don’t use them.

[eddiecoyote]

I tried using Things 3 and it was great. When just doing “office work” OF was great. But then I did one of my other jobs, which was infantry instructor in the army. Then I moved over to become a Platoon Sergeant. The thing about the military it that there is a lot of delegation and reporting, and also different teams and locations.

There are tasks that I can only do in training area 1, or 2, or 3.
There are tasks that are associated with 1st squad, or 2nd squad, or 3rd squad, or weapons squad.
There are tasks that are associated with admin shops.
There are tasks that are associated with supply.
There are tasks that I’m waiting for someone to get back to me. But I can only talk to them about it in Training area 1 (or 2 or 3…)
There are tasks that given to me by supervisors that they want me to return to them about. Welcome to the big shiny.

Things 3 was great in this. I could add a tag for my Weapons Squad leader, Training area 1, Waiting, and would select multiple tags. But the lack of ability to save this recipe of tags was tiring to have to recreate.

Things also failed me in that it showed all tasks, not just available tasks. This became overwhelming, even with multiple tag selection.

If Omnifocus, which is superior to every other app out there with hiding tasks that are not available to act on, added the ability to add multiple contexts, this would allow for some very useful perspectives.

Also, not sure how to do it, but the use of an “OR” in perspectives, would be useful.

Example, I have two perspectives for Army. One shows available tasks in the Army area of concern (folder) that are available. But this doesn’t show me the tasks that I’m waiting for. To use “remaining” in order to see the waiting for tasks I then get tasks that I scheduled in the future, which is too much.

Practical application. I have available tasks that I’m working on. I am asked by the Commander to get ten people to be OPFOR. I send word to the Squad Leaders to get me 3 volunteers per squad. Now I’m waiting for them to get me names. Now I have 4 ‘waiting’ context tasks (receive names from 1st squad). As I am pulled in a thousand directions it is nice to open up one perspective to see what it is that I can act on and am waiting on. Sometimes I only have 2 minutes while standing in front of a full platoon. As it is I use two perspectives for this. Now add multiple jobs and areas of concern, and perspectives gets unruly. Add also that I can’t add a task while viewing within a perspective. So if I’m standing in front of a platoon, reading from a perspective about tasks to give out, do, or waiting on, and I need to input a task, I can put it into my Inbox, which I need to process later on. More friction.

[Nick]

This may be an unnecessary distraction, but you might want to look at 2Do. It has multiple contexts and saveable searches with complex expressions.

I’ve never been able to get properly to grips with it (too many ingrained habits from OF, I suppose), but it might be a good fit for what you’ve described

[kidtreo]

Further, GTD calls for ENERGY required for a next action and this has been glaringly omitted since the start and IMHO is essential. Tagging would allow this and other functionality me and many users have been clamoring for. It’s rediculous to wish for others to not have something when you’d simply need to ignore / not use that function. Hope this helps.

[new2018]

I agree. I’m new to OF, in the middle of the 14 day trial, bought the books, videos and omnilearn subs, to make sure I do this right, and not having multiple contexts or tags is killing me. Apart from the usual use for context I separate the work done throughout the day based on cognitive performance, i.e. mornings for mathematical/complex/focus, and so on. Using the deferred time is cumbersome and has workflow issues for items that really can be done any time.

I really do not want to spend the $ to get all the apps (mac, iphone, ipad) without having this, I might have to dedicate 1hr today to look at options before committing :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(.

[enrvuk]

It will frustrate you forever, but none of us have found better alternatives. I think they’ve been adding multiple contexts for quite some time.