Discussion Forum > Question for GTDers (current or former)
I use the default list that were recommended in the book (@CALLS, @OFFICE, @HOME, @ERRANDS, @COMPUTER, @WAITING FOR, @AGENDAS). I don't use @ANYWHERE, since it seems silly to me. I usually have 10-15 next actions in each context.
After experimenting with Mark's systems, I would apply the "circulate around the list" concept to each context to knock them off the list. If I was at my work desk with a phone and computer, I would treat @CALLS and @COMPUTER as one list. On weekends, I would group @HOME and @ERRANDS.
A good indication that it was time to switch contexts is when that context had no more tasks left in it.
Since going back to GTD recently, I have brought some other ideas from SupeFocus into my Outlook setup. New Outlook tasks get created with no Category (i.e. like Column 1, or "stuff" in GTD-speak). Once I decide to take action on it, I assign it a context (i.e. similar but not the same as entering it in Column 2, where I am committed to finishing it). Anything still with no Category after 30 days shows up in my Weekly Review (i.e. similar to DWM or AF/SF dismissal).
I waffle back and forth between GTD and SuperFocus on a regular basis. If nothing else, it helps to prune my list in the process of transferring from Outlook to Moleskine and back.
After experimenting with Mark's systems, I would apply the "circulate around the list" concept to each context to knock them off the list. If I was at my work desk with a phone and computer, I would treat @CALLS and @COMPUTER as one list. On weekends, I would group @HOME and @ERRANDS.
A good indication that it was time to switch contexts is when that context had no more tasks left in it.
Since going back to GTD recently, I have brought some other ideas from SupeFocus into my Outlook setup. New Outlook tasks get created with no Category (i.e. like Column 1, or "stuff" in GTD-speak). Once I decide to take action on it, I assign it a context (i.e. similar but not the same as entering it in Column 2, where I am committed to finishing it). Anything still with no Category after 30 days shows up in my Weekly Review (i.e. similar to DWM or AF/SF dismissal).
I waffle back and forth between GTD and SuperFocus on a regular basis. If nothing else, it helps to prune my list in the process of transferring from Outlook to Moleskine and back.
March 17, 2011 at 1:15 |
Brian D
Brian D
That was my biggest issue with GTD. I'd have some work tasks but mostly my personal tasks. Yes there were the standard contexts, but I felt like I needed my Home context broken down into more 'state of mind' sorts of things. I'd try to separate my personal interest type things from my cleaning type things from my financial type things etc. etc. So either I'd get a somewhat arbitrarily chopped up list or a giant list. OmniFocus lets you choose to just view the single Next Action for each project, but I never liked that. I like to see the field and let something call to me (like in SF). I'd nest contexts within contexts, then un-nest. I switched to Remember the Milk to be able to use multiple contexts (using tags).
March 17, 2011 at 3:23 |
malisa
malisa
Contexts never worked for me, because my tasks typically don't fall easily into particular contexts. If I need to call someone, I could just as well send them an email, or wait until I see them in person, or leave a note on their desk. There are many things I could do in any number of contexts. I do a lot of my work at home, but I could do it at the office, or at the library. Some things I need a piano for, but sometimes an electric keyboard or another instrument or a computer will do. Wherever I was, I ended up having to check several context lists to get the complete inventory of things I could do, and it was useless. So for me, "errands" was really the only category that needed to be separate. Everything else went on one list.
Now the SF list works well for me. If the task is an errand, I put an "E" with a circle around it, so I can see them when I'm out and about.
Now the SF list works well for me. If the task is an errand, I put an "E" with a circle around it, so I can see them when I'm out and about.
March 17, 2011 at 3:33 |
Sarah J
Sarah J
Sarah & malisa, you are describing exactly my experience with contexts. Working from home, my @Home context was a giant mass of pain. I thought @Calls was going to be great, but it ended up being a hiding spot for non-urgent phone calls. And since my schedule rarely forced me to switch contexts, splitting up @Home meant having to wonder "which context am I in NOW?" Yet, @Home as one big list made me "go numb to the list," as The David would say.
I ended up just blocking time into work/family/personal rather than using contexts. And then whenever things would go sideways, I would tinker with reallocating the blocks.
@Errands, however, was brilliant, and I still use it.
@Agendas was pretty useful too, though now I tend to have meeting-specific folders for this purpose.
I loved David Allen's example of @Boat, but I don't have a boat.
Nevertheless, I learned a lot from my six years attempting to follow GTD. Many of the habits and insights embedded in GTD are brilliant and very helpful 24/7. But for me, the system as a whole did not scale well. When I ran into trouble, I could only rescue it by starting over with empty lists.
I ended up just blocking time into work/family/personal rather than using contexts. And then whenever things would go sideways, I would tinker with reallocating the blocks.
@Errands, however, was brilliant, and I still use it.
@Agendas was pretty useful too, though now I tend to have meeting-specific folders for this purpose.
I loved David Allen's example of @Boat, but I don't have a boat.
Nevertheless, I learned a lot from my six years attempting to follow GTD. Many of the habits and insights embedded in GTD are brilliant and very helpful 24/7. But for me, the system as a whole did not scale well. When I ran into trouble, I could only rescue it by starting over with empty lists.
March 17, 2011 at 5:53 |
Bernie
Bernie
I tried one way. On Omnifocus here are my contexts.
Unfinished
Urgent
Réviser
Opportunité Business
Planifier
Agenda
Appel
Office Work
Mac
Errands
Think about
Loisirs
Home
Lecture
Catty
Charlotte
Clients
Someday / Maybe list ?
NOTES.
---
the idea was to do such a thing like superfocus. Urgent are for things which are urgent
unfinished is = to SF, Revision = dismiss and so on.The difficulties is that my context list ie call includes all my call which i am committed or not. So it can be huge.
I like the idea of brian to put in context nothing but what i am committed
Then may be it would be a good idea to add a new context call general or C1 to put all my stuff until i decide to really do it and then use my context as brian about nothing BUT what i am committed to do. Then it would be a kind of C2.
Unfinished
Urgent
Réviser
Opportunité Business
Planifier
Agenda
Appel
Office Work
Mac
Errands
Think about
Loisirs
Home
Lecture
Catty
Charlotte
Clients
Someday / Maybe list ?
NOTES.
---
the idea was to do such a thing like superfocus. Urgent are for things which are urgent
unfinished is = to SF, Revision = dismiss and so on.The difficulties is that my context list ie call includes all my call which i am committed or not. So it can be huge.
I like the idea of brian to put in context nothing but what i am committed
Then may be it would be a good idea to add a new context call general or C1 to put all my stuff until i decide to really do it and then use my context as brian about nothing BUT what i am committed to do. Then it would be a kind of C2.
March 17, 2011 at 8:12 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
<<What "contexts" do you use (or did you use)?>>
Still using @work and @home.
<<How do (did) you know it was time to switch from one "context" to another?>>
Using several clocks, 8 to 5 job. Appointments on calendar.
<<What would be a typical number of tasks in each context? >>
There used to be hundreds of them, but nowadays I limit them to about fifty (only those that I am committed to do within the near future). They get done by using AF2. A lot of stuff goes onto my someday list.
Still using @work and @home.
<<How do (did) you know it was time to switch from one "context" to another?>>
Using several clocks, 8 to 5 job. Appointments on calendar.
<<What would be a typical number of tasks in each context? >>
There used to be hundreds of them, but nowadays I limit them to about fifty (only those that I am committed to do within the near future). They get done by using AF2. A lot of stuff goes onto my someday list.
March 17, 2011 at 8:14 |
Rainer
Rainer
<<Then may be it would be a good idea to add a new context call general or C1 to put all my stuff until i decide to really do it and then use my context as brian about nothing BUT what i am committed to do. Then it would be a kind of C2. >>
Jupiter, you could spare yourself some headache by putting all your undecided/uncommitted input/stuff into an AF1 list and go through it when time permits. For the commitments you could then either use your contexts and work on them, or put all of your commitments into an SFv3 list with C1 and C2.
Jupiter, you could spare yourself some headache by putting all your undecided/uncommitted input/stuff into an AF1 list and go through it when time permits. For the commitments you could then either use your contexts and work on them, or put all of your commitments into an SFv3 list with C1 and C2.
March 17, 2011 at 11:04 |
Rainer
Rainer
<<What "contexts" do you use (or did you use)?>>
In GTD times I used approx. 10-15 and by the years they melted down to
@home, @home.computer, @computer, @errands, @office, @phone
Since using AF and now SF I only have 3 contexts which are devided by device: Mole Pocketsized Notebook = home; cheap spiral pocketsized notebook = errands AND capturing (always with me), a task-application (mylifeorganized) = office
<<How do (did) you know it was time to switch from one "context" to another?>>
Mainly controlled by working-hours. I check my errands list before commute from work.
<<What would be a typical number of tasks in each context? >>
errands: 0 to 10
home: curently 43
office: currently 83 (i park tasks in a someday-maybe folder which aren't counted here)
I rely on plain SF, but capturing, someday/maybe, waiting4, projectfolders and the next-action-thinking in some extend had survived.
-
In GTD times I used approx. 10-15 and by the years they melted down to
@home, @home.computer, @computer, @errands, @office, @phone
Since using AF and now SF I only have 3 contexts which are devided by device: Mole Pocketsized Notebook = home; cheap spiral pocketsized notebook = errands AND capturing (always with me), a task-application (mylifeorganized) = office
<<How do (did) you know it was time to switch from one "context" to another?>>
Mainly controlled by working-hours. I check my errands list before commute from work.
<<What would be a typical number of tasks in each context? >>
errands: 0 to 10
home: curently 43
office: currently 83 (i park tasks in a someday-maybe folder which aren't counted here)
I rely on plain SF, but capturing, someday/maybe, waiting4, projectfolders and the next-action-thinking in some extend had survived.
-
March 17, 2011 at 12:03 |
jens
jens
@Rainer "you could spare yourself some headache by putting all your undecided/uncommitted input/stuff into an AF1 list and go through it when time permits. For the commitments you could then either use your contexts and work on them, or put all of your commitments into an SFv3 list with C1 and C2"
That's right. as I work on omnifocus I began this morning to clean my context and keep nothing but my commitments ie what i must do. For my "undecided/uncommitted input/stuff" I realized that there is already a list which is call no context on the omnifocus's context view. Then by default they are here. There is also another advantage about putting my commitments on contexts If the things doesn't advance as I wish I can drop it as you say in a SFV3 list ith C1 and C2 and then they advance for sure.
Here are the new omnifocus's contexts
No context
Agenda
Waiting From
Appel
Macintosh
Office Work
Planifier
Errands
Home
Loisirs
Videos
Think about (waiting)
Réviser (waiting)
Opportunité Business (waiting)
people (waiting)
Someday / Maybe list ? (waiting)
NOTES. (waiting)
and in my context list are excluded the waiting tasks.
That's right. as I work on omnifocus I began this morning to clean my context and keep nothing but my commitments ie what i must do. For my "undecided/uncommitted input/stuff" I realized that there is already a list which is call no context on the omnifocus's context view. Then by default they are here. There is also another advantage about putting my commitments on contexts If the things doesn't advance as I wish I can drop it as you say in a SFV3 list ith C1 and C2 and then they advance for sure.
Here are the new omnifocus's contexts
No context
Agenda
Waiting From
Appel
Macintosh
Office Work
Planifier
Errands
Home
Loisirs
Videos
Think about (waiting)
Réviser (waiting)
Opportunité Business (waiting)
people (waiting)
Someday / Maybe list ? (waiting)
NOTES. (waiting)
and in my context list are excluded the waiting tasks.
March 17, 2011 at 12:05 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
@Bernie,
Could you please let us know how exactly you use the @Errands context with SF3?
@Rainer
"you could spare yourself some headache by putting all your undecided/uncommitted input/stuff into an AF1 list and go through it when time permits. For the commitments you could then either use your contexts and work on them, or put all of your commitments into an SFv3 list with C1 and C2."
Very similar idea : just use SF3 with a Someday/Maybe list?
The "undecided/uncommited input/stuff" then either goes directly into the S/M list (when you KNOW its too distant or "optional" to belong to the SF list now), or gets written into the SF3 list directly (when you're unsure wether you will commit to it or not in a not-so-distant future). You then take action on this "stuff" within SF3 (gets done or goes to C2) soon enough, or else the dismissal process dumps it to the Someday/Maybe list.... The SM list gets reviewed weekly à la GTD, and some items then get a chance to (re)enter the SF3 list when you know (or just think) you want to commit to them and get them done in a relatively near future this time. Of course if you messed up and realize during the weekly review that some SM/Dismissed items are now urgent, enter them directly in C2.
Thoughts?
Could you please let us know how exactly you use the @Errands context with SF3?
@Rainer
"you could spare yourself some headache by putting all your undecided/uncommitted input/stuff into an AF1 list and go through it when time permits. For the commitments you could then either use your contexts and work on them, or put all of your commitments into an SFv3 list with C1 and C2."
Very similar idea : just use SF3 with a Someday/Maybe list?
The "undecided/uncommited input/stuff" then either goes directly into the S/M list (when you KNOW its too distant or "optional" to belong to the SF list now), or gets written into the SF3 list directly (when you're unsure wether you will commit to it or not in a not-so-distant future). You then take action on this "stuff" within SF3 (gets done or goes to C2) soon enough, or else the dismissal process dumps it to the Someday/Maybe list.... The SM list gets reviewed weekly à la GTD, and some items then get a chance to (re)enter the SF3 list when you know (or just think) you want to commit to them and get them done in a relatively near future this time. Of course if you messed up and realize during the weekly review that some SM/Dismissed items are now urgent, enter them directly in C2.
Thoughts?
March 17, 2011 at 14:05 |
Daouda
Daouda
No thoughts, just agreement, Daouda. What you describe is what I'm doing using AF2 (I don't use SFv3). My above post was intended to help Jupiter in his situation, not to describe what I'm doing. In AF2 the C1-items and C2-items are in one single list together. But that doesn't bother me, because if something gets really urgent, it goes into my calendar.
March 17, 2011 at 14:45 |
Rainer
Rainer
@Rainer and Daouda,
Then If i rightly understand this could work like this a la GTD way in omnifocus.
1. All tasks if they are longer than 2 mn goes into the project with a NONE CONTEXT.
2. All task less than 2 mn are done immediately a la GTD way
3. When the project is reviewed you put a CONTEXT if you are committed to do it ie @CALL if you must call someone. Then you must do it ASAP.
4. If a Task has to be done on a certain day it goes on my agenda (that's what i already do)
5. On exception if you don't know if you will do it or not OR if you plan to do it Someday then in goes on a @Someday may be Context list into the Omnifocus Context view.
Many thanks for the little help from my friends ;-)
Then If i rightly understand this could work like this a la GTD way in omnifocus.
1. All tasks if they are longer than 2 mn goes into the project with a NONE CONTEXT.
2. All task less than 2 mn are done immediately a la GTD way
3. When the project is reviewed you put a CONTEXT if you are committed to do it ie @CALL if you must call someone. Then you must do it ASAP.
4. If a Task has to be done on a certain day it goes on my agenda (that's what i already do)
5. On exception if you don't know if you will do it or not OR if you plan to do it Someday then in goes on a @Someday may be Context list into the Omnifocus Context view.
Many thanks for the little help from my friends ;-)
March 17, 2011 at 16:14 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Daouda, I don't use @Errands within SuperFocus. SuperFocus sometimes generates errands, and I guess an errand could show up in C2 if I needed to run off for it right now and somehow didn't finish it in one shot. I could also imagine putting individual errands in C1 and waiting for one to "stand out," but I prefer to let my schedule take me past a store and then seize the opportunity to run in and pick up a bunch of things at once. My @Errands lives next to my "today list." Both are "action triggers" in a GTD sense.
If I've given the impression that I'm anti-GTD, that is not true. I loved much of GTD, and I always wanted it work, but for me it was missing the all-important "how to work your list" component, perhaps largely due to the work-from-home problem; and try as I might, I just could *not* warm up to the Weekly Review. I still use many, many of GTD's components, such as calendar-as-hard-landscape, ubiquitous capture, action triggers, etc. But when it comes to *processing* actions and especially doing them, SF is taking over.
I am intrigued by some of the posts above where GTD people are using SuperFocus to feed GTD, whereas I'd have thought GTD would feed SF. It's possible this could work for me, letting SF hold my uncommitted action options (Someday/Maybe, and possibly inbox itself), letting SF's "stand out" method put actions onto small GTD action lists of things I am actually committed to doing. I can see how this might be very powerful if I went back to time-blocked contexts. For now, I am really trying to focus on SF and getting that C1/C2 balance right, plus SF is teaching me quite a lot about how I *really* allocate my time and make decisions, in a way that GTD never did.
If I end up needing something fresh, I will welcome GTD back into my life and try feeding it with SF. In any case, SF's "stand out" and dismissal are here to stay.
If I've given the impression that I'm anti-GTD, that is not true. I loved much of GTD, and I always wanted it work, but for me it was missing the all-important "how to work your list" component, perhaps largely due to the work-from-home problem; and try as I might, I just could *not* warm up to the Weekly Review. I still use many, many of GTD's components, such as calendar-as-hard-landscape, ubiquitous capture, action triggers, etc. But when it comes to *processing* actions and especially doing them, SF is taking over.
I am intrigued by some of the posts above where GTD people are using SuperFocus to feed GTD, whereas I'd have thought GTD would feed SF. It's possible this could work for me, letting SF hold my uncommitted action options (Someday/Maybe, and possibly inbox itself), letting SF's "stand out" method put actions onto small GTD action lists of things I am actually committed to doing. I can see how this might be very powerful if I went back to time-blocked contexts. For now, I am really trying to focus on SF and getting that C1/C2 balance right, plus SF is teaching me quite a lot about how I *really* allocate my time and make decisions, in a way that GTD never did.
If I end up needing something fresh, I will welcome GTD back into my life and try feeding it with SF. In any case, SF's "stand out" and dismissal are here to stay.
March 17, 2011 at 20:10 |
Bernie
Bernie
Way back when I used GTD, I used @ computer, @ phone and then soon realized it was a waste of time because when in the office I always had a phone and a computer and sorting things this way cost time instead of saving it. The reason I moved away from GTD and everything else for that matter is that the time spent doing the system never was worth it in productivity terms. Additionally, I like the idea of picking a few important things a day and making sure I focus on them to get them done, which GTD does not really do.
As an aside, I don't understand the concept of mixing TM systems. GTD stands on its own and so does SF. It seems to me to mix two systems is to further complicate things.
Gerry
As an aside, I don't understand the concept of mixing TM systems. GTD stands on its own and so does SF. It seems to me to mix two systems is to further complicate things.
Gerry
March 17, 2011 at 20:31 |
Gerry
Gerry
I love this thread and I am very interested by how people manage GTD and SFV3.
I really wonder how people do to use daily SFV3 and GTD ?
For myself I have all my projects on GTD with a digital solution Omnifocus.
Having all my task about each projects helps me a lot. I can have a global view of all I am waiting for and all things I must do about something. GTD is then very easy to apply and i can take some altitude to put my stuff in a global perspective.
Then Omnifocus is great for collecting in one place all my stuff and see all my project at a glance. I love it for this.
But, I dont like GTD contexts except for @Call, @Waiting for, @Someday may be
I like making my calls in a batch, I like have all I am waiting for and focus on a project I can wait many things about a project... The someday may be list is a great list to put what I which to do such as taking plane lessons, do a ride on ballooning, list of my dreams....
So clearly I need my tasks and I need them linked to my project and omnifocus is the perfect tool for this.
My real problem is about the next step. When I have all collected and linked to my project and I need to act. I must admit there is nothing better for me than superfocus V3 for acting BUT ONLY on PAPER. I don't fell anything on computer. I can think with it but I can't act. I tried to adapt SFV3 on Omnifocus but I fell. Not only I felt nothing but I could not do anything. But on paper it's incredible. On paper C1 and C2 are great. The paper method is great too. But how can I do ?
Do you have the same problem ?
How do you deal with it ?
Is there any one using omnifocus and SFV3 on paper ?
How do you extract your tasks ?
Is SFV3 feeding Omnifocus or is it omnifocus feeding SFV3 ?
How do you control double beams ?
Thanks for the help and advices.
I really wonder how people do to use daily SFV3 and GTD ?
For myself I have all my projects on GTD with a digital solution Omnifocus.
Having all my task about each projects helps me a lot. I can have a global view of all I am waiting for and all things I must do about something. GTD is then very easy to apply and i can take some altitude to put my stuff in a global perspective.
Then Omnifocus is great for collecting in one place all my stuff and see all my project at a glance. I love it for this.
But, I dont like GTD contexts except for @Call, @Waiting for, @Someday may be
I like making my calls in a batch, I like have all I am waiting for and focus on a project I can wait many things about a project... The someday may be list is a great list to put what I which to do such as taking plane lessons, do a ride on ballooning, list of my dreams....
So clearly I need my tasks and I need them linked to my project and omnifocus is the perfect tool for this.
My real problem is about the next step. When I have all collected and linked to my project and I need to act. I must admit there is nothing better for me than superfocus V3 for acting BUT ONLY on PAPER. I don't fell anything on computer. I can think with it but I can't act. I tried to adapt SFV3 on Omnifocus but I fell. Not only I felt nothing but I could not do anything. But on paper it's incredible. On paper C1 and C2 are great. The paper method is great too. But how can I do ?
Do you have the same problem ?
How do you deal with it ?
Is there any one using omnifocus and SFV3 on paper ?
How do you extract your tasks ?
Is SFV3 feeding Omnifocus or is it omnifocus feeding SFV3 ?
How do you control double beams ?
Thanks for the help and advices.
March 17, 2011 at 21:09 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Jupiter:
I use "Things" which is close to Omnifocus. I started using it while I was doing GTD but then left it behind. It has great potential and I really dislike leaving potential behind. Now, I use it as a planning tool. A "Projects Plans" kind of thing and use it more as a review thing rather then a "choose the next action" thing.
I use "Things" which is close to Omnifocus. I started using it while I was doing GTD but then left it behind. It has great potential and I really dislike leaving potential behind. Now, I use it as a planning tool. A "Projects Plans" kind of thing and use it more as a review thing rather then a "choose the next action" thing.
March 17, 2011 at 23:19 |
Erik
Erik
Erik
"Now, I use it as a planning tool. A "Projects Plans" kind of thing and use it more as a review thing rather then a "choose the next action" thing." What a great idea ! I never thought about this ! Thank you so much now it's seems obvious and so simple.
I could do 2 things :
1) use Omnifocus on my mac for projects plans thinking and planing and putting non actionable tasks (ie all I am am waiting for from other), someday may be list, in fact all what is not actionable or actionable in the future !
2) I could report on my notebook on SFV3 all my actionable tasks and stay concentrate on what I do on PAPER ! . So I could rush on my task and just do it. Then I would erase from omnifocus all actionable tasks as they are on SFV3. So it's easy to follow.
I could then work on perspective as I do with GTD taking time to elaborate my strategies and revieuw my project list once a day and one a week to freeze or active my projects depending on what i really want to do.
So Erik Thanks to you I have my answer !!!. I gona spend a good week end. I do it immediately (there are not many actionable tasks) and see how it works but I am sure it will.
"Now, I use it as a planning tool. A "Projects Plans" kind of thing and use it more as a review thing rather then a "choose the next action" thing." What a great idea ! I never thought about this ! Thank you so much now it's seems obvious and so simple.
I could do 2 things :
1) use Omnifocus on my mac for projects plans thinking and planing and putting non actionable tasks (ie all I am am waiting for from other), someday may be list, in fact all what is not actionable or actionable in the future !
2) I could report on my notebook on SFV3 all my actionable tasks and stay concentrate on what I do on PAPER ! . So I could rush on my task and just do it. Then I would erase from omnifocus all actionable tasks as they are on SFV3. So it's easy to follow.
I could then work on perspective as I do with GTD taking time to elaborate my strategies and revieuw my project list once a day and one a week to freeze or active my projects depending on what i really want to do.
So Erik Thanks to you I have my answer !!!. I gona spend a good week end. I do it immediately (there are not many actionable tasks) and see how it works but I am sure it will.
March 18, 2011 at 8:13 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
I moved away from GTD because it was too "push-mode" (Mark's term) for me: drive, drive, drivenness. Strive, achieve, be someone. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0VRj2uw9L0)
I found "Dreams" + superfocus gave me broadly the balance between my spirituality and directed meaningful action broadly answered the coaching question I pose myself: "What is the best use of my time today?"
I found "Dreams" + superfocus gave me broadly the balance between my spirituality and directed meaningful action broadly answered the coaching question I pose myself: "What is the best use of my time today?"
March 18, 2011 at 11:45 |
michael
michael
RATZ, Jupiter's post gives me an idea for a program. Take LifeBalance, but replace the activity suggestion algorithm with SuperFocus. Instead of dynamically shuffling tasks put them in order added ( and let the OrganiZing and categorizing be optional, as an afterthought. That is, the task page should be primary and follow SF. The organize page should be secondary, and be for tasks in SF that want to be organized.
March 18, 2011 at 12:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Jupiter:
<<I must admit there is nothing better for me than superfocus V3 for acting BUT ONLY on PAPER. I don't fell anything on computer. I can think with it but I can't act. >>
Exactly!
And I am using it as you summarized following Erik's post.
In OF I have 18 active projects and 12 projects on hold. I don't work from OF at all. I glance down the list every once and a while as a trigger to see what can get added to SF. If there are reference type things I need with a project, they go into OF with the context Reference (set to waiting) or Documentation (set to active) if I think I will want to see it on my iphone without much work because of the view that I use on that.
I have a Single Action list called Dismissed from SF. It's still separate from my someday maybe because I'm still finding the balance between the systems. I also have a folder called Reference because I've found that it's a handy place to keep all different sorts of info since I have it available on all devices. In that folder are various Single Action lists, all set to on hold. That's where my someday maybe stuff is.
I also still have another Single Action list called Future Projects. These are more fleshed out than someday maybes, but less than the twelve that I consider in a 'staging area' by being out in the open, set up as projects, but on hold.
This is where I'm at trying to get them to work together for a few weeks. Keep posting you're ideas, I will too. Very helpful.
<<I must admit there is nothing better for me than superfocus V3 for acting BUT ONLY on PAPER. I don't fell anything on computer. I can think with it but I can't act. >>
Exactly!
And I am using it as you summarized following Erik's post.
In OF I have 18 active projects and 12 projects on hold. I don't work from OF at all. I glance down the list every once and a while as a trigger to see what can get added to SF. If there are reference type things I need with a project, they go into OF with the context Reference (set to waiting) or Documentation (set to active) if I think I will want to see it on my iphone without much work because of the view that I use on that.
I have a Single Action list called Dismissed from SF. It's still separate from my someday maybe because I'm still finding the balance between the systems. I also have a folder called Reference because I've found that it's a handy place to keep all different sorts of info since I have it available on all devices. In that folder are various Single Action lists, all set to on hold. That's where my someday maybe stuff is.
I also still have another Single Action list called Future Projects. These are more fleshed out than someday maybes, but less than the twelve that I consider in a 'staging area' by being out in the open, set up as projects, but on hold.
This is where I'm at trying to get them to work together for a few weeks. Keep posting you're ideas, I will too. Very helpful.
March 18, 2011 at 13:38 |
malisa
malisa
Wow, more OmniFocus gold!
I too found that the computer screen just didn't inspire me to act, though it was great for outlining and planning (and searching for stuff I planned a month ago). My OmniFocus gradually morphed into a Due Date filter and a once-in-a-while project planning tool, while I reverted to ad hoc to-do lists on paper (before I found SF).
Meanwhile, I began wanting to move away from proprietary systems (like OmniFocus' closed database), and I took another look at the Mac OS itself with its "Smart Folders" and searching, aliases, and Folder Actions.
Consider this: instead of OmniFocus, why not just use the Finder? You can (obviously) store any file in it without goofy "attachments," take notes in a text file or a spreadsheet or a mind-map drawing tool, or any weirdo type of file you prefer, use Aliases to allow a file to "live" in more than one folder, take a lesson from Gmail and "just search" instead of constructing elaborate nested folders ... take a lesson from GTD and reduce your file tree's top level to Incubator, Projects, Reference, and Archive. (Maybe Inbox too, if you don't mind having yet another digital inbox).
As usual, I began doing this but only bothered for my top priority items, while my vast backlog remains scattered through OmniFocus, paper files, and other programs such as Journler and Tinderbox that I no longer use. But I am finding the Finder about as good as OmniFocus in most cases, plus I can "export" from any of those old apps into the Finder, in some fashion. Theoretically. When I get around to it. Someday. ;->
Windows people can do all the same stuff, though some of it goes by different names. All I am suggesting is making project folders on your desktop using actual Windows folders and files, shortcuts and searches, etc., rather than installing some "killer app" and then having to complain "it doesn't do XYZ" or "it won't read spreadsheet tables." And on the OmniFocus front, you can do most of the same stuff with tools like EverNote.
Hmm, maybe I should start a thread on computer-file organizing? I would love to see someone's awesome low-overhead techniques, especially if they go great with SF. Never started a thread here before ...
I too found that the computer screen just didn't inspire me to act, though it was great for outlining and planning (and searching for stuff I planned a month ago). My OmniFocus gradually morphed into a Due Date filter and a once-in-a-while project planning tool, while I reverted to ad hoc to-do lists on paper (before I found SF).
Meanwhile, I began wanting to move away from proprietary systems (like OmniFocus' closed database), and I took another look at the Mac OS itself with its "Smart Folders" and searching, aliases, and Folder Actions.
Consider this: instead of OmniFocus, why not just use the Finder? You can (obviously) store any file in it without goofy "attachments," take notes in a text file or a spreadsheet or a mind-map drawing tool, or any weirdo type of file you prefer, use Aliases to allow a file to "live" in more than one folder, take a lesson from Gmail and "just search" instead of constructing elaborate nested folders ... take a lesson from GTD and reduce your file tree's top level to Incubator, Projects, Reference, and Archive. (Maybe Inbox too, if you don't mind having yet another digital inbox).
As usual, I began doing this but only bothered for my top priority items, while my vast backlog remains scattered through OmniFocus, paper files, and other programs such as Journler and Tinderbox that I no longer use. But I am finding the Finder about as good as OmniFocus in most cases, plus I can "export" from any of those old apps into the Finder, in some fashion. Theoretically. When I get around to it. Someday. ;->
Windows people can do all the same stuff, though some of it goes by different names. All I am suggesting is making project folders on your desktop using actual Windows folders and files, shortcuts and searches, etc., rather than installing some "killer app" and then having to complain "it doesn't do XYZ" or "it won't read spreadsheet tables." And on the OmniFocus front, you can do most of the same stuff with tools like EverNote.
Hmm, maybe I should start a thread on computer-file organizing? I would love to see someone's awesome low-overhead techniques, especially if they go great with SF. Never started a thread here before ...
March 18, 2011 at 16:49 |
Bernie
Bernie
@Bernie
"Hmm, maybe I should start a thread on computer-file organizing? I would love to see someone's awesome low-overhead techniques, especially if they go great with SF."
I would love a discussion about this and share with others our tips about organising files. I could explain how i organized at the very beginning a gtd system with the toolbar !
Hope you do it.
"Hmm, maybe I should start a thread on computer-file organizing? I would love to see someone's awesome low-overhead techniques, especially if they go great with SF."
I would love a discussion about this and share with others our tips about organising files. I could explain how i organized at the very beginning a gtd system with the toolbar !
Hope you do it.
March 18, 2011 at 18:12 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Bernie -
Yes I hope you do this too.
Yes I hope you do this too.
March 19, 2011 at 1:01 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan,
Yeah that's basically what I have been mulling over for a few weeks.. Although at this point it would likely be ontop of the MLO engine. I haven't bugged Andrey about it yet because right now he's been so busy with the android beta...
What's fun is SF has me getting so caught up that I might have time to fire up the code editor myself... Step one make an algorithm that does this, and step two work out some sort of licensing from mark...
In the meantime I really need another month or so of using SF to really grok what happens in it's entirety.
Yeah that's basically what I have been mulling over for a few weeks.. Although at this point it would likely be ontop of the MLO engine. I haven't bugged Andrey about it yet because right now he's been so busy with the android beta...
What's fun is SF has me getting so caught up that I might have time to fire up the code editor myself... Step one make an algorithm that does this, and step two work out some sort of licensing from mark...
In the meantime I really need another month or so of using SF to really grok what happens in it's entirety.
March 19, 2011 at 1:32 |
Bob Pankratz
Bob Pankratz
How do (did) you know it was time to switch from one "context" to another?
What would be a typical number of tasks in each context?