Discussion Forum > Trying to bring the feel and flow of AF1 back to SF
Hi Marc,
I really like your ideas. I'm not using Autofocus or Superfocus at the moment. I find Superfocus particularly difficult with all the rules, potential variables and 'what if scenarios'.
However, if I were to return to Superfocus I would certainly consider this. Have you considered setting a 'work in progress' limit to column 2? Or would this add a layer of unwelcome complexity?
I really like your ideas. I'm not using Autofocus or Superfocus at the moment. I find Superfocus particularly difficult with all the rules, potential variables and 'what if scenarios'.
However, if I were to return to Superfocus I would certainly consider this. Have you considered setting a 'work in progress' limit to column 2? Or would this add a layer of unwelcome complexity?
April 27, 2011 at 14:14 |
leon
leon
Hi Marc,
deviation 2 seems to be similar to what Mark (Forster) is testing currently:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1460996 (posting date 19/4)
deviation1: this sound to me as if you define "finished" ex post instead of ex ante as Mark is suggesting.
deviation 2 seems to be similar to what Mark (Forster) is testing currently:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1460996 (posting date 19/4)
deviation1: this sound to me as if you define "finished" ex post instead of ex ante as Mark is suggesting.
April 27, 2011 at 15:09 |
Christian G.
Christian G.
Marc,
This is exactly how I have been doing it myself! I have found that I resist any mandatory rules! So, I find myself resisting C2 unless they are urgent or what *my* mind believes are "fast track" items. My mind needs to feel the urgency and the pull, otherwise there is a ton of resistance. So, going with the way you have laid out, it flows very well similar to AF but has the flexibility to deal with real issues that pop up that needs immediate attention. Also, this has enabled to dismiss many items. The review of dismissed items has given me a lot of insight in how my mind works and underpinnings behind why they got dismissed in the first place.
GC
This is exactly how I have been doing it myself! I have found that I resist any mandatory rules! So, I find myself resisting C2 unless they are urgent or what *my* mind believes are "fast track" items. My mind needs to feel the urgency and the pull, otherwise there is a ton of resistance. So, going with the way you have laid out, it flows very well similar to AF but has the flexibility to deal with real issues that pop up that needs immediate attention. Also, this has enabled to dismiss many items. The review of dismissed items has given me a lot of insight in how my mind works and underpinnings behind why they got dismissed in the first place.
GC
April 27, 2011 at 15:19 |
Greenchutney
Greenchutney
I've been doing something pretty similar to your variation #1 (along with the option of demoting C2 items to C1 of the last page, which is in Mark's latest experimental version). Basically I let my intuition guide where the task should be re-entered.
April 27, 2011 at 16:24 |
Sarah
Sarah
Marc,
Your approach is perfect, I think. It's close to what I do, while trying to follow Mark F.'s SF rules with some of the recent variations. If I feel that I don't want the pressure to resume an "unfinished" task soon, I rewrite it at the end in C1, but usually rephrase it to indicate a specific next action, rather than "Continue working on X." I also automatically demote any unfinished task to C1 if the next page is the last page. That is, I don't allow anything into C2 of the last page (until C1 is filled up and it is thus no longer the last page).
I became a bit concerned that I wasn't using C2 properly, since many of my pages had little or nothing there, but I guess it means that I was "in the flow" AF1-style!
Your approach is perfect, I think. It's close to what I do, while trying to follow Mark F.'s SF rules with some of the recent variations. If I feel that I don't want the pressure to resume an "unfinished" task soon, I rewrite it at the end in C1, but usually rephrase it to indicate a specific next action, rather than "Continue working on X." I also automatically demote any unfinished task to C1 if the next page is the last page. That is, I don't allow anything into C2 of the last page (until C1 is filled up and it is thus no longer the last page).
I became a bit concerned that I wasn't using C2 properly, since many of my pages had little or nothing there, but I guess it means that I was "in the flow" AF1-style!
April 27, 2011 at 18:29 |
ubi
ubi
My goal is to bring SF as closely to the feel and flow of AF1 (which is still my favourite), while addressing AF1's weakness in handling urgencies.
Main deviations from the SF rules are the following.
1. When I feel I've worked enough on the current item, I decide if it is a "fast track" item. If so, it goes on C2 of the next page to drive it forward. If not, it goes on C1 of the last page, AF1 style. This means that I'm happy to have made some progress for now and can wait until it stands out again. In this approach, I don't need to clearly define what "finished" means for a task, which was something I liked in AF1. It is also similar (not identical) to how new tasks are approached: urgent goes in C2 (but current page), the rest in C1 last page.
2. If an item on the current page's C2 doesn't stand out, I take this to mean that my "fast track" or "urgent" assessment was misguided, or that is has been moved forward enough to let it return to standard AF1 rhythm. So I demote it back to C1 on the last page. This removes the compulsory nature of C2 which had brought back the resistance that AF1 mostly eliminated.
What do you think?