Discussion Forum > My current variation of SuperFocus -- trying out something new
You could try the "cave deposits" method: write regular items from the top down and urgent items from the bottom up. Then the space devoted to "C2" will be self-adjusting.
September 23, 2011 at 14:15 |
Bernie
Bernie
Um, C2 is built after C1 is closed.
September 23, 2011 at 15:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<<Um, C2 is built after C1 is closed.>>
Ha, of course it is. It's been so long since I used regular SF that I forgot how that looked. I spent about a month writing Active tasks from top down while writing my open list from bottom up, so I was always building both at the same time.
Ha, of course it is. It's been so long since I used regular SF that I forgot how that looked. I spent about a month writing Active tasks from top down while writing my open list from bottom up, so I was always building both at the same time.
September 23, 2011 at 19:25 |
Bernie
Bernie
Marc:
In the early days of AF1 (when it was still called AF without the "1") I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark. You might find that more convenient than keeping a separate space on the page.
In the early days of AF1 (when it was still called AF without the "1") I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark. You might find that more convenient than keeping a separate space on the page.
September 23, 2011 at 20:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark>>
Thanks for the suggestion. I did indeed consider that. However, I'm still more or less sticking to the SF rule that action must be taken on all C2 items before moving to the next page. Working with a loose piece of paper makes it less evident to ensure this effectively happens.
Even so, there are situations when I'll move a C2 item to the next page, e.g. because of timing constraints, availability of people to discuss with etc. In these cases the loose leaf might be more practical, but rewriting on the next page has the advantage of showing when this happens and allows me to reassess the real urgency.
Finally, I like to have all tasks in one place (consolidated physically); a separate sheet of paper may get lost or forgotten about.
<<urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark>>
Thanks for the suggestion. I did indeed consider that. However, I'm still more or less sticking to the SF rule that action must be taken on all C2 items before moving to the next page. Working with a loose piece of paper makes it less evident to ensure this effectively happens.
Even so, there are situations when I'll move a C2 item to the next page, e.g. because of timing constraints, availability of people to discuss with etc. In these cases the loose leaf might be more practical, but rewriting on the next page has the advantage of showing when this happens and allows me to reassess the real urgency.
Finally, I like to have all tasks in one place (consolidated physically); a separate sheet of paper may get lost or forgotten about.
September 26, 2011 at 8:26 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
When I went to the free-form analog (from digital SF) I also went back to AF1. I'm handling urgent items with post-its - that is, if I think of something I need to do "soon" (using roughly the same intuition that decided whether items went at the end of the list or in C2) I jot it on a post it and stick it to my current page, and then treat it as part of that page (more or less).
I also have two ... I guess you'd call them project lists ... that I treat in the same way. One has a list of all the things I need to do first on mornings that I teach, and the other has a list of all the things I need to do after a class meeting is over (attendance, checking off activities, etc.).
It's working OK. I'm toying around with going back to SF (but in the free form book). Maybe. I moved things along a lot faster when they had to go in C2 until they were done.
I also have two ... I guess you'd call them project lists ... that I treat in the same way. One has a list of all the things I need to do first on mornings that I teach, and the other has a list of all the things I need to do after a class meeting is over (attendance, checking off activities, etc.).
It's working OK. I'm toying around with going back to SF (but in the free form book). Maybe. I moved things along a lot faster when they had to go in C2 until they were done.
September 26, 2011 at 13:16 |
Sarah
Sarah
Mark Forster:
>> In the early days of AF1 (when it was still called AF without the "1") I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark. <<
I didn't know about this but that's how I've been using it for almost 2 months now, since I went back to regular AF1. I'm finding it a very useful and balanced approach.
Instead of a "separate piece of paper" though, I'm using a 5" post-it note sticking out from the inside cover[1] (using a 5.5" pocket moleskine), making it behave as an always visible "3rd page".
[1] i'm left-handed, so a right-handed person would probably use the inside back cover instead.
>> In the early days of AF1 (when it was still called AF without the "1") I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark. <<
I didn't know about this but that's how I've been using it for almost 2 months now, since I went back to regular AF1. I'm finding it a very useful and balanced approach.
Instead of a "separate piece of paper" though, I'm using a 5" post-it note sticking out from the inside cover[1] (using a 5.5" pocket moleskine), making it behave as an always visible "3rd page".
[1] i'm left-handed, so a right-handed person would probably use the inside back cover instead.
September 28, 2011 at 23:56 |
Hugo Ferreira
Hugo Ferreira
After filling 4 pages with the new layout (25 lines of "C1" + 8 lines of "C2"), I noticed I only ever had between zero and two items in the "C2" area. So as from today I reduced it to 5 lines per page.
I didn't yet notice any significant impact of the reduction of the number of "C1" lines per page; either it's too soon to tell, or the difference is too small to notice.
I didn't yet notice any significant impact of the reduction of the number of "C1" lines per page; either it's too soon to tell, or the difference is too small to notice.
October 5, 2011 at 15:38 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc wrote:
<<After filling 4 pages ... I only ever had between zero and two items in the "C2" area>>
It seems like most people still using SF are making minimal use of C2. I'm not the first to voice this observation. Is it true?
<<After filling 4 pages ... I only ever had between zero and two items in the "C2" area>>
It seems like most people still using SF are making minimal use of C2. I'm not the first to voice this observation. Is it true?
October 5, 2011 at 17:04 |
Bernie
Bernie
Would a different version of AF work better for you? It seems to me C2 is redundant to your way of working. Personally I move between versions from time to time. At the moment I use AF4R with the "unfinished" page holding aspects of my future vision! It creates the right sort of reminder and enticement - the "creative tension" that Robert Fritz refers to. putting them in C2 for me doesn't feel the same.
October 5, 2011 at 19:44 |
michael
michael
Bernie:
<< It seems like most people still using SF are making minimal use of C2. >>
Oddly enough when SF was first introduced the major concern expressed by people was how to keep C2 down to a manageable size.
<< It seems like most people still using SF are making minimal use of C2. >>
Oddly enough when SF was first introduced the major concern expressed by people was how to keep C2 down to a manageable size.
October 5, 2011 at 22:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<Oddly enough when SF was first introduced the major concern expressed by people was how to keep C2 down to a manageable size.>>
Yes, Mark, and I was one of those people! If the minimal-C2 trend is accurate, then SF users have evolved through survival of the C2-fittest, while we C2 gluttons have gone extinct.
Marc from Brussels, as long as we are stripping down C2, we may as well make it three lines per page, per The Rule of Three. It's 3T for Urgent/Unfinished! (... sort of)
Yes, Mark, and I was one of those people! If the minimal-C2 trend is accurate, then SF users have evolved through survival of the C2-fittest, while we C2 gluttons have gone extinct.
Marc from Brussels, as long as we are stripping down C2, we may as well make it three lines per page, per The Rule of Three. It's 3T for Urgent/Unfinished! (... sort of)
October 6, 2011 at 5:17 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
<< If the minimal-C2 trend is accurate, then SF users have evolved through survival of the C2-fittest, while we C2 gluttons have gone extinct. >>
A good example of the maxim "Better to do a few things well, than a lot of things badly"?
<< If the minimal-C2 trend is accurate, then SF users have evolved through survival of the C2-fittest, while we C2 gluttons have gone extinct. >>
A good example of the maxim "Better to do a few things well, than a lot of things badly"?
October 6, 2011 at 10:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Possibly, but it's also the case of the medium constraining the artist. Artists who don't limit C2 quickly find SF imploding on them. One answer is to limit C2. Another is to change to a system that won't implode in these circumstances. So naturally the only ones who use SF successfully are those who use C2 very little.
October 6, 2011 at 14:26 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I never have many items in C2. But, from the very beginning, I never used C2 for "unfinished." I only used it for "urgent."
Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent.
It's worked fine for me like this.
Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent.
It's worked fine for me like this.
October 6, 2011 at 18:47 |
moises
moises
moises:
<< Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent. >>
Though presumably some unfinished tasks are urgent and therefore you would put them in C2.
<< Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent. >>
Though presumably some unfinished tasks are urgent and therefore you would put them in C2.
October 6, 2011 at 19:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<Though presumably some unfinished tasks are urgent and therefore you would put them in C2. >>
Very true.
I do not want to attribute motives, but I will go out on a limb and assume the unfinished rule was in there to encourage finishing, which is certainly desirable. But from day 1 I defined my tasks to mean "do some work on . . ." because I believed so firmly in little and often and the power of inertia.
Very true.
I do not want to attribute motives, but I will go out on a limb and assume the unfinished rule was in there to encourage finishing, which is certainly desirable. But from day 1 I defined my tasks to mean "do some work on . . ." because I believed so firmly in little and often and the power of inertia.
October 6, 2011 at 21:07 |
moises
moises
moises:
<< I do not want to attribute motives, but I will go out on a limb and assume the unfinished rule was in there to encourage finishing, which is certainly desirable. >>
You don't have to go out on a limb or attribute motives because SF was the result of a lot of talk in the Forum about the importance of finishing, which included the creation of 3T and AF4-3T.
I'm not clear why you think that using C2 would have been against your belief in little and often.
<< I do not want to attribute motives, but I will go out on a limb and assume the unfinished rule was in there to encourage finishing, which is certainly desirable. >>
You don't have to go out on a limb or attribute motives because SF was the result of a lot of talk in the Forum about the importance of finishing, which included the creation of 3T and AF4-3T.
I'm not clear why you think that using C2 would have been against your belief in little and often.
October 6, 2011 at 22:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
As a newcomer at the launch of SF, I struggled to learn little & often while also trying to get the hang of C2 and the "standing out" principle. I found them pulling me in opposite directions, which I never did learn to balance. In my case, I think it was too much learning all at once: all three of those principles were entirely new to me, opposite to how I'd always worked, and yet they felt much more natural than how I'd always worked.
Before SF, I'd always worked only a few projects at a time (as few as possible), and always finish one before starting another. The trouble would come when I started avoiding my few projects: they weren't moving, and I wasn't allowed to start anything else. Only the bare minimum (unavoidable) maintenance got done, and lots of busywork.
In a nutshell, SF quickly made me a structured procrastinator. While avoiding my "current" projects, countless small-to-medium items stood out. Little & often told me there was no need to finish any of them in one sitting. C2 collected loads of Unfinished items. It was a wonderfully lubricated system until C2 seized up. Were I to return to SF, I think I'd have better sense about standing out vs. the available room in C2 vs. how little to make the "little & often"s. The intuitive nature of these tradeoffs masks some significant complexity that can only be learned over time.
For those who have learned it over time, the product seems to be a tiny C2. For anyone wanting to give SF another try, then, it would seem the place to start is enforcing C2 to a tiny size. It may be painful at first, but then one's operational rules will adjust, and finally one's intuition will follow with practice.
Before SF, I'd always worked only a few projects at a time (as few as possible), and always finish one before starting another. The trouble would come when I started avoiding my few projects: they weren't moving, and I wasn't allowed to start anything else. Only the bare minimum (unavoidable) maintenance got done, and lots of busywork.
In a nutshell, SF quickly made me a structured procrastinator. While avoiding my "current" projects, countless small-to-medium items stood out. Little & often told me there was no need to finish any of them in one sitting. C2 collected loads of Unfinished items. It was a wonderfully lubricated system until C2 seized up. Were I to return to SF, I think I'd have better sense about standing out vs. the available room in C2 vs. how little to make the "little & often"s. The intuitive nature of these tradeoffs masks some significant complexity that can only be learned over time.
For those who have learned it over time, the product seems to be a tiny C2. For anyone wanting to give SF another try, then, it would seem the place to start is enforcing C2 to a tiny size. It may be painful at first, but then one's operational rules will adjust, and finally one's intuition will follow with practice.
October 7, 2011 at 8:02 |
Bernie
Bernie
moises:
<< Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent. >>
That's exactly how I use it, with the possibility mentioned by Mark to put unfinished items in C2 if they're urgent. But that's the exception as long as I manage to go through all active pages (7 currently) about once a day.
This is why I consider my usage of SF as essentially AF1 with an addition to handle urgent items in a structured way.
<< Unfinished items just go to the bottom of C1 like everything else except urgent. >>
That's exactly how I use it, with the possibility mentioned by Mark to put unfinished items in C2 if they're urgent. But that's the exception as long as I manage to go through all active pages (7 currently) about once a day.
This is why I consider my usage of SF as essentially AF1 with an addition to handle urgent items in a structured way.
October 7, 2011 at 8:23 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
<<You could try the "cave deposits" method:>>
<<C2 is built after C1 is closed.>>
<<I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark.>>
<<…a separate sheet of paper may get lost or forgotten about.>>
<<This is why I consider my usage of SF as essentially AF1 with an addition to handle urgent items in a structured way.>>
In view of these comments, to me anyway, we all have very important projects going on that cannot be put off; some of them are just downright urgent.
So why can't C2 simply be listed separately and treated as one of these "important and urgent" projects?
For example, right now where I am, the river is rising and is creating total havoc. I have a separate project to deal with this and of course I consider it urgent and keep it with my other urgrent projects (including my C2's).
Instead of worrying about the number of lines alloted to urgent items, entering from the bottom up, etc., don't we have a lot of control of our projects since we are at liberty to put anything we want into the regular AF list, including our own strict rules on how we handle the C2 lists and other projects?
I think Jupiter summed it up very well in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1615293 with his statement, "I think little by little all my project(s) will be centralized on my Mac but, for acting, NOTHING, NOTHING is WORTH (more than) autofocus on my paper A4 notebook."
Is it uncommon to list C2 separately because of the disadvantages outweighing the advantages (loses its structural methodology)? So far, I am doing okay with it, but who know's over time, or if it becomes too large.
<<C2 is built after C1 is closed.>>
<<I suggested that urgent tasks could be written on a separate piece of paper which could be used as a bookmark.>>
<<…a separate sheet of paper may get lost or forgotten about.>>
<<This is why I consider my usage of SF as essentially AF1 with an addition to handle urgent items in a structured way.>>
In view of these comments, to me anyway, we all have very important projects going on that cannot be put off; some of them are just downright urgent.
So why can't C2 simply be listed separately and treated as one of these "important and urgent" projects?
For example, right now where I am, the river is rising and is creating total havoc. I have a separate project to deal with this and of course I consider it urgent and keep it with my other urgrent projects (including my C2's).
Instead of worrying about the number of lines alloted to urgent items, entering from the bottom up, etc., don't we have a lot of control of our projects since we are at liberty to put anything we want into the regular AF list, including our own strict rules on how we handle the C2 lists and other projects?
I think Jupiter summed it up very well in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1615293 with his statement, "I think little by little all my project(s) will be centralized on my Mac but, for acting, NOTHING, NOTHING is WORTH (more than) autofocus on my paper A4 notebook."
Is it uncommon to list C2 separately because of the disadvantages outweighing the advantages (loses its structural methodology)? So far, I am doing okay with it, but who know's over time, or if it becomes too large.
October 11, 2011 at 21:51 |
BKK
BKK
SCRATCH THAT. Having a completely separate C2 list(s) is not working for me at all; too much loss of intuition. I almost forgot how much plain fun the whole AF/SF way was compared to the old Gtd way of using lists. So why stray away even for urgents?
It's already enough to keep up with separate agenda/hard items, on-the-fly lists and projects. I found it too easy to let C2's go wild if they are completely separate.
It's already enough to keep up with separate agenda/hard items, on-the-fly lists and projects. I found it too easy to let C2's go wild if they are completely separate.
October 13, 2011 at 14:12 |
BKK
BKK
Random idea: Write on every other line of the page, then use the gaps on the same page or following pages for anything very urgent or reasonably urgent that may come up, or just notes etc.
October 13, 2011 at 22:39 |
smileypete
smileypete
I've written before that of all systems I tried, AF1 is the one I prefer. It has a great feel and is especially good (for me) to break through procrastination.
Seven months ago, I switched to SF to see how well it could address the main weakness of AF1, handling urgent items. I found that SF also works very well for me. However, its use has slowly evolved over time.
I've abandoned the use of the second column (C2) for unfinished items. When I stop working on an item and it needs more work, I always enter it back at the end, AF1 style. Initially I still made a distinction between "fast track" items that would go into C2 and "normal" ones in C1, but that has gradually phased out. So now C2 is only for urgent items. My SF has de facto reverted back to AF1 with the addition of a dedicated space for urgent items.
Since C2 only contains urgent items now, I noticed it rarely contains more than 4 or 5 entries per page, often only between zero and two. My C1 and C2 use facing pages in my A4 notebook, as I need the full length of a line to be specific enough in the description of the item. So it seems a big waste of space to have an entire 33 line page taken up for two C2 items. Therefore I now draw a horizontal line dividing the page in two parts. Above it, I have 25 lines for the regular (C1/AF1) list, below it 8 lines for urgent items. This actually looks a bit like a DIT page ;)
I'm curious to find out how reducing the number of lines per page from 33 to 25 will affect the pacing and effectiveness of the system. I'll report back when I found out if this is an improvement or not.