Sometimes that can be a very good thing in a software product. It leads to a more (dare I say it) focussed app!
I’m not sure whether this is true here. But in general, a good rule of thumb is that every time as a developer you say “just make it an option”, you’ve failed slightly in terms of UX design. The correct strategy is to weigh up the two possibilities — is one of them better than the other overall? Does one meet the needs of 90% of users and the other 10%? If so, just go with the 90%. Trying to be all things to all people leads to a confusing watered down mess, and increases your testing workload exponentially (since you have to test every combination of options).
I would wager Omni have made such a decision in this case: that it’ll be better for the software overall to stick to a single context workflow. It’ll be interesting to see if they revisit that in the future — as @kamil pointed out, these days we’re a lot more able to work in multiple places, so maybe the design decision they made early on is no longer the best one.
But the main point I wanted to make is that Omni aren’t trying to spite anyone by not adding it, nor are they just trying to save a bit of effort. You don’t get to be a software company this well regarded without making difficult trade-offs between elegance, simplicity, practicality and customisability. OmniFocus would be nowhere near as accessible to people (and thus nowhere near as popular) if it had ten times the number of settings and let you make it work however people wanted.
I think I specifically pointed out they are doing stuff, and the lack of new features in the Mac platform is probably due to resources on iOS and the Apple Watch. It’s definitely the case that some of us would find evolution of the Mac platform more valuable than the IOS and Apple Watch stuff.
I’d have to say… YUCK on having OmniFocus as flexible as an Adobe app.
When I open an Adobe app, I stare at it for 30 minutes, can’t figure out how to do anything, and close it. If OmniFocus were that complicated (er, “flexible”) I’d never, ever use it.
Good software makes choices. Good software guides users. Good software HELPS users. Only if software CANNOT do specific things is it an issue. I want more choices made for me, not fewer. I want to work, not fiddle. I want enough tools to get the job done, and no more.
When I open an Adobe app, I stare at it for 30 minutes, can’t figure out how to do anything, and close it. If OmniFocus were that complicated (er, “flexible”) I’d never, ever use it.
The regular version could be simple, and the Pro version could have optional features.
Some people, me including, get excited when they see so many options, buttons, simply fun. But I understand some people value simplicity.
Simple’s not always easy, not for everyone. Some people would see things as more complicated, where some would see the same thing as more options, more freedom.
Example: I created my workspace with any Adobe software I’m using (actually multiple workspaces), and based on the type of work I’m doing, I’m able to speed up the process in 2-5 hours/day, comparing if I’d be using the default settings.
Good software makes choices. Good software guides users. Good software HELPS users.
You could just turn off the option. I believe if someone is paying to use a software, it’s mostly because it helps.
Only if software CANNOT do specific things is it an issue. I want more choices made for me, not fewer.
I consider OmniFocus 2 the Snow Leopard or Mountain Lion update cycle.
We had Mac OS X Leopard. The next version was Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
We also had Mac OS X Lion and then Mac OS X Mountain Lion.
These updates were more refinements and tuneups to the previous Mac OS X release. OF2 would be a refinement of OF1. More significant updates would probably be coming in a future update.
Clean simplicity is not easy and many people that use task managers are often the type that like to tweak all sorts of things. Personally, I like Omni’s approach very much and find it has the power I need without the ability to customise everything endlessly.
in many ways, dear @kamil, you are stepping on other people’s / product’s feet with your opinion. I yet need to see a software company that has been bullied into adapting a feature request. The usage of software like OF should best not hinge on stuff like multiple contexts, but if it does, why don’t you search for something that is more fitting?
To me it seems that you first need to define what you can’t live without instead of what features you would best like to combine into your inexistent dream app you want Omni to make for you. I you find it outside of Omni, it will also be worth the money to invest.
One thought, Kamil, is that a perspective can filter by text. If you adopted this then you could use something like #cooking#wireless#financial or whatever you find suitable into the note of an action/task and then add those ‘tags’ into the Perspective’s filter. I’ve not tried this but it seems as though it should be possible.
I sure am a demanding client. But I also have contributed a lot to the development of the OF itself, at least in my opinion, when I look at the time spent on describing all the bugs, ideas, etc. in the emails to Omni.
OF suits me the best. I have tried many apps, actually all of them, literally. I even moved to OF1 for like a month, and it worked better than OF2 to some extend, however I had to turn back to the dark side, as some things were taking too much time. I have also spent a lot of money on the Omni products. Believe me, I’m not the only one. Maybe just the loudest ;-)
I’ll take that statement into consideration and I’ll give it more thought. Thanks
Yes @KiltyGreen but it’s not the same. I have tried this approach and I couldn’t work with it in the long term.
Perhaps you have some tips, advices, links, etc. which you could share? I would appreciate and I would definitely look into what has worked for you.
The main problem I have with this approach is that I was unable to successfully have perspective which would search like “OR” command in Google. Any ideas how o do this?
I would invert your statement somewhat. (Project/Task Management) Software such as OF should best not hinge their future development on stuff like a purist’s view of GTD that is entirely absent multiple contexts (forever and always, amen).
There are valid reasons about when and/or if a feature request should be implemented. Profitability, the resources needed to support and maintain a new feature, impact on workflow for the majority of the users (and not just the few) are just a small handful of things to consider when implementing new features. I wouldn’t want to just add on every thing either.
As I said in my post, I use single contexts so I’ve never used such ‘tags’ I just offered it as a possible option for you as I’d read about it elsewhere.
As a software developer myself of many years, it’s important to understand that EVERY application ever created exists at the meeting point of the technically possible, the time & resources available, the costs, the client’s wants and the developer’s vision.
This thread provocatively asks why it is “impossible” for Omni to implement multiple contexts. It makes for a headline, but I doubt for a moment that it’s true. Omni have been writing software, and specifically using Objective-C (which underlies probably all good/excellent Mac and iOS, and NeXT apps) for longer than perhaps a number of posters here have been on this earth and I’m sure if they wanted to implement it, then they could, especially since other GTD software shows it’s possible. That they haven’t, tells you that there are not multiple contexts/tags for some other reason. Omni know why but the rest of us are guessing.
You have to use software as it is, not as you would like it to be otherwise you will get very frustrated. So I suspect that you need to:
Tell Omni what you would like, via email and/or
See if there is a workaround that allows what you want now with OF as it exists now or
Change your requirements or
Change your software.
Something has to give and I would not rely on it being Omni …
For reasons I can’t quite explain this post resonates with me. While I agree that it’s a lot of dough in my case I consider it well spent for the time I used OF actively.
When you would read the old OF forum from many years ago, you would find a rather vocal group who are asking the same questions that have arisen here and now about why multiple contexts are not possible in OF. You would find, the majority of folks who were asking such questions back then were being told (IMO often rather bluntly) by the other (significantly larger) group of otherwise happy OF users just to stick to the strict interpretation GTD mantra (use one context only) or use kludges (tags in notes or title fields).
IOW, the queries and their replies on this topic back in the archives were just about exactly the same as they are today.
At some point on the time-line between then and now, you would find a blip. Someone from OmniGroup steps forward and mentions openly in the forum (paraphrased) “In a (near) future release, as we move to redesign the database structure, we may include a meta-field to allow folks to set (multiple) tags”.
Very soon thereafter, you would watch the thread with that blip of news be swallowed in a big hoopla about the pending release of OF 2 (which is itself then withdrawn to be redesigned).
We are now back at start of “history repeats itself”, only with OF 2 rather than OF 1.
My educated guess is that Omnigroup has no intent to make a release of OF that includes the ability to set multiple contexts on tasks. The best that will happen is that OF will someday (perhaps) include a “tag” meta-field. The tag meta-field will only be included after the OF database structure has been rebuilt.
In the meantime, on the topic of why OF cannot/does not have multiple contexts, OmniGroup is otherwise quite happy to leave us guessing among ourselves whether we are truly educated or blissfully ignorant about their future plans.
I think I really get your point and it’s a valid one (the letting us guess part)… But honestly, what options do they have? Why should they state that they will never implement multiple contexts - what undoubtedly their current position reflects - and lose a lot of credibility in the “orthodox GTD zealots” camp when they change their mind? It cuts both ways and so the wisest of options is to actually not say anything.
The only point I disagree is the interpreted hostility on Omnis side:
This paragraph implies that we are manipulated. Of course you are free to see it from this perspective. But it’s not the only angle available:
Let me add a personal experience that can be summed up with a picture: I could eat only one piece of a chocolate bar - usually I end up not being able stop eating chocolate until the bar is finished.
Same goes for task managers: why does Omni make that choice for grown-ups when we could easily use only one context if we really wanted to?
Because. We. Wouldn’t. It’s our nature. Knowing this, why complicate planning therefore by giving us the power to distract us from focusing? Now it actually doesn’t make sense anymore, to want to implement this.
I really hope noone is reading this as fanboyism, as I am really trying to make a point independent of the task manager used. Omni is just very good in knowing which limits to hold up while innovating in other areas.
I actually picture the team having this discussiong with quite similar argumentation over and over again, just as we do ;-)
I’ve been watching this debate for a while now. I think the Omni folks have made their position quite clear in a number of threads in the old forums. In more than one thread, they (Omni) asked why people needed tags. And then they proceeded to explain how OF could accomplish the stated goal without them.
We don’t use / need multiple contexts / tags, so nobody else does.
I doubt it’s that’s “crystal clear”, every potential feature is a matter of priorities. They just see it as a very low priority.
This may come across as negative, but I don’t necessarily mean it to be. Some of the best products ever invented were great because their creators had a “singular vision”…
Let’s stop making our cars to be so fast. People will die. It’s in their nature.
I hope you see my point here, that it is hard to compare chocolate (desire/pleasure) to GTD, productivity and someone’s way of achieving it (process/results). As much as I like comparisons I think they serve well when explaining new concepts, etc.
If today, there would appear an app called Focustivity:
▸ the same and more features
▸ easy 1:1 import from OmniFocus and copy/past as links etc.
▸ great, customizable design
– meaning anyone can design layout they want to, adding, moving around, etc.
– yes, this is more options, but why is it worse? It isn’t. It’s better. OmniFocus=default only. Focustivity=default+presets+sharable templates+customize. Nah. Default only is better…
▸ with the same price
▸ and on the top of that Multicontext feature and Tags
Questions to you (you don’t have to answer):
• Do you think more people would start leaning toward Focustivity?
• Would Omni still keep low feature approach?
• Why do you think Focustivity would be worse option than OF, assuming you could import anything from OF (perspectives, shortcuts, etc.)?
• Why multicontexts would be in your way? Don’t want to use them? Why not just Command coma disable exit done?
• Why do you think people creating tasks with octa-contexts are considered as a problem here? And even if, isn’t it because anyone has to figure things out first and find their best approach, or it’s just because they can’t say no to a context like to a chocolate?
• How long did it take you to figure out OF and find your context approach? How many articles did you read? It’s a process, right?
• How many there are topics and question from people saying, “too many contexts, what to do?” and similar, with problems they have? (subtract 50 my own topics ;-) )
• If Omni would add this feature tomorrow, would it destroy your workflow? Would you start being as “mouthy” as I am to remove it if you could disable it?
I really don’t understand why improvement in your opinion stands in the way. People always will be troubled, no matter how many options, contexts, features. Besides, you have Standard and Pro versions (and for $).
Many people have problems with their approach, or had in the past, me including. If someone has a problem with an approach, it’s their problem, because 1) it’s their fault they have a faulty approach or 2) they haven’t figured it out yet. Wait, did I just admit I’m wrong and I have a problem? No, I didn’t. I don’t have a problem with my approach. I figured things out, found ways around. Many AppleScripts, Keyboard Maestro macros, but I’m moving forward. What I would want to do is to move forward faster. I cannot implement my approach the way I want, because OmniFocus doesn’t have features necessary. But it’s my problem, right? I should go and try other Things if I don’t like OmniFocus. Not even close. OmniFocus is the most professional tool with the most of the most of the options, and that’s why I invested (at this point) hundreds of $ in Omni products. Either you’re client/user/subscriber, you have the right to demand fixes, implementations of new features, or info on the features requests, especially those requested long time before you and I have started using OmniFocus. That’s anyone’s right, and I’m not giving up on requesting something which I find useful, especially there when is a lot of info and a lot of people which back up what’s above.
What is really troubling for me is to see your point of view and understand your thinking that it would be worse. At the end of the day, you could turn it off. [It really tempts me to throw a punch line with chocolate here, but I will resist it ;-) ]
Honestly I can’t think of any software company, which would make their clients want more, because the company doesn’t implement something.
I couldn’t find anywhere the quote or anything close to “We don’t use / need multiple contexts / tags, so nobody else does.” I don’t think it’s possible Omni would say that.
You add more options and features, your software becomes better, more valuable tool. If Omni won’t do that, it would be was better if they would just say so. That way some people could decide, “OK, it won’t happen, I will do this.” Omni stays “politically correct” in their view, but
Sometimes we think we know what we want (more knobs, more dials, more features. But then someone shows a more simple approach and it works better than what you want.
I hear this argument from my Android friends. They like customizing and rooting their phones. They spend countless hours making their phones do cute things. Meanwhile I am so focused on completing project reports, checking off tasks, and moving on to the next big thing.
I remembered when Microsoft Word 5.1 was a nice word processor that just did its job and was focused on word processing. Over time, Microsoft wanted to make it “better” and tried to add layout features to compete with desktop publishing software such as Adobe InDesign. Noawacays, it is a mess.
I often switch to Apple Pages just to streamline and focus on word processing. I don’t fire up Word unless I have to read a complicated document from a client.
More options doesn’t always mean better. It just becomes a better mess.
