FV and FVP Forum > Tags to aid scanning - TODAY: do this, REPEAT: do this
Scott:
I personally don't like tags because I think they have several deleterious effects:
1) They complicate something when its main feature is that it is really really simple.
2) They interfere with the scanning process.
3) You have to remember to use them, which adds strain to the system.
How would I deal with the three cases in which you use tags?
I don't find "Repeat" necessary at all. I know perfectly well which tasks need to be repeated and have no problem remembering to rewrite them. I do sometimes simply forget to rewrite a task because I've got distracted onto something else, but that would still happen even if the task had a tag.
"Today" tasks usually congregate near the end of the list so are easy to pick up without any special marking.
"W/F" I wouldn't really call a tag. "Waiting for Bill to reply" is the task itself. I prefer to write "Bill replied?", which implies that if he hasn't I need to consider whether to do something about it (such as chase him up or go ahead without him).
I personally don't like tags because I think they have several deleterious effects:
1) They complicate something when its main feature is that it is really really simple.
2) They interfere with the scanning process.
3) You have to remember to use them, which adds strain to the system.
How would I deal with the three cases in which you use tags?
I don't find "Repeat" necessary at all. I know perfectly well which tasks need to be repeated and have no problem remembering to rewrite them. I do sometimes simply forget to rewrite a task because I've got distracted onto something else, but that would still happen even if the task had a tag.
"Today" tasks usually congregate near the end of the list so are easy to pick up without any special marking.
"W/F" I wouldn't really call a tag. "Waiting for Bill to reply" is the task itself. I prefer to write "Bill replied?", which implies that if he hasn't I need to consider whether to do something about it (such as chase him up or go ahead without him).
March 31, 2012 at 1:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Fair enough. I find that a lot of my "helpful additions" to my systems end up falling out after a short time anyway because, as you wisely point out, they complicate, interfere, and add strain to the system. They encourage more maintenance, which is a less-desirable path to take.
Additions usually get tossed in because I haven't yet worked the system long enough for the trust to build up on it's own. I worry that I might miss a TODAY, or not write down a REPEAT. But I have no evidence for that. It is just a fear, which the full review of the full list several times a day will address. As with any skill or tool, that trust takes time, but in my experience, it's worth it.
Your FV rules have held up for me over three weeks (and obviously considerably longer for you during your development period). The ones I have added have not. I am learning my lesson. :)
I do like your approach for Waiting Fors. Leading with the proper noun of a person (or company's) name sets it apart from regular tasks that often begin with a verb or simple noun. It mentally sets the context (Bill). Lastly, the question mark seems to make sense - followup, or not?
Thanks very much for the tip, and for reminding me not to complicate that which has great value because of its simplicity.
Additions usually get tossed in because I haven't yet worked the system long enough for the trust to build up on it's own. I worry that I might miss a TODAY, or not write down a REPEAT. But I have no evidence for that. It is just a fear, which the full review of the full list several times a day will address. As with any skill or tool, that trust takes time, but in my experience, it's worth it.
Your FV rules have held up for me over three weeks (and obviously considerably longer for you during your development period). The ones I have added have not. I am learning my lesson. :)
I do like your approach for Waiting Fors. Leading with the proper noun of a person (or company's) name sets it apart from regular tasks that often begin with a verb or simple noun. It mentally sets the context (Bill). Lastly, the question mark seems to make sense - followup, or not?
Thanks very much for the tip, and for reminding me not to complicate that which has great value because of its simplicity.
March 31, 2012 at 4:04 |
scottmoehring
scottmoehring
"REPEAT: do this task". This helps me ensure that I have a stake in the ground for simple one-offs that need to happen again. When I see this, I automatically rewrite it as I cross it off.
"TODAY: do this task". This I use when I add something that simply MUST get done today. It's similar to David Allen's rule about only putting things on the calendar that die if they don't happen that day. The "tag" helps me when scanning for a new ladder to make sure I don't miss a time-critical item.
"W/F NAME: check up on this task". e.g. "Waiting For Bill to .... " These are quickly scanned over, and typically less urgent.
These three are working well for me. Too many "tags", and I don't think it would work nearly as well.