Make it possible to give tags sub-tags
This may seem like an odd request but bare with me for a while.
I have started using tags like contexts more frequently. Examples of this would be "Internet", "Computer", "Phone", "Errand" etc.
The reason that I bring up Internet, Computer and Phone is that they are all tech related. In other words, I could have a task that can be accomplished as long as I have access to any of these. Say that I need to check a reservation that I have made. I can do this if I get a hold of any computer where I can log onto my mail service. I can do this on the Computer (with which I refer to my job computer). Or I can simply call the traveling agency and ask.
But instead of writing all of these contexts into the task, I could simply write "Tech" (which would have the sub-tags "Internet", "Computer" and "Phone") and the rest of the tags (including Tech) would automatically be written into the task.
Maybe this is to granular and possibly even an edge case. But I felt it may be interesting to hear what the rest of the community thinks. I know for instance that programs such as Omnifoucs has this ability.
2 Posted by Proximo on 18 Aug, 2011 04:05 AM
I recently simplified my context again in the effort to keep things simple and focus my time on getting things done.
In my case, I have access to my computer, internet, email and phone 90% of the time.
So Instead of having a context for each, I simply use @computer for anything that can be done with my computer, internet or email. I still use @call because I can make a call while out of the office.
I see no reason is breaking down context any further than necessary. When adding a actionable task to my GTD system, I simply want to add as little information as I need in order to get it done.
Using less context where it makes sense really makes things easier. We all have different work environments, so please take my example for what it is. The important thing is for everyone to really see how you work and what makes the most sense for your situation.
Instead of having super tags with sub-tags, I went the other direction. I cut the fat and made everything simpler for me.
My current context are:
computer (computer, email, online)
call (phone, iPhone)
errand (use my car to go somewhere)
agenda (discuss topics)
anywhere (my body and mind)
office (stuff at the office but not my desk)
home (stuff at home)
review (things I need to read, review or validate)
If I notice that I don't use a context often, I would probably delete it and keep making things simpler.
3 Posted by jber on 18 Aug, 2011 06:37 AM
One context that I have recently added is @commitment. My primary motivation for setting this up was to make doubly sure that I didn't accidentally let commitments I make to clients fall through the cracks.
4 Posted by dafyren on 18 Aug, 2011 10:13 AM
Proximo, great list of contexts! Based on your previous posts about simplifying, I have also cut down on the number of contexts significantly.
For the "review "context, I just have a folder in Evernote called review. Everything I need to review, I place there (PDFs, forwarded emails, articles from internet, etc). So no need to create separate tasks in Nirvana. I can review this easily from my iPad, iPhone or computer.
5 Posted by levi on 18 Aug, 2011 01:11 PM
@Elurven I think brings up some issues that get at my recent conversation with Geert about contexts. As Geert (and/or maybe Proximo) had suggested, contexts in the GTD sense tend to be things that you have to have in order to complete a task. The problem is that this doesn't take into consideration when there are multiple items or locations that you have to have/be at in order to fulfill a task. In such cases you are either going to specify all of them and then just find the task when filtering on one of them (or multiple) if you have that thing with you, or you end up not specifying any and then the task will come up even without a filter. So I do think there is something missing from the logical flow here.
I don't know how to get around this. making context hierarchies I don't think is the solution because it starts to become burdensome to maintain, and makes the system more complex. But the more pressing issue is that while you might be able to group things logically, that doesn't mean things will always fit into that "tech" group, and so by specifying a strict relationship, you are binding those things together permanently. My thought, but I don't know how feasible this would be in practice, would be to have a "any of these" grouping per task. So you could specify (home OR out) as a tag grouping, and then perhaps a "phone or computer" as another grouping. These wouldn't be permanent relationships, just temporary ones at the task level. But maybe that is making things too complex, I don't know, but I do know that I don't feel like there is a real solution right now other than treating contexts as "anything that you would need" rather than "you have to have all of these" when tagging your task, which, as I said, would not be GTD-compliant, for whatever that's worth...
6 Posted by Elurven on 18 Aug, 2011 03:42 PM
Proximo and levi, you both make very excellent points regarding the issue of contexts and or tags. To be honest, I haven't really figured out the best practice myself yet, and therefore, I am using the Nirvana forums as my external brain to help me hash this out.
Recently I read a post that was actually about Omnifocus, but I suppose it might apply to GTD in general. It was stated here that if one task could have more contexts, you should choose the context that carries more weight, i.e. In which context are you most likely to spot this task in a review.
I think that I need to make a list of the tags/contexts to use and then use as few as possible. But Mac and Internet need to be separate items to me. When I'm commuting, I don't always have an internet connection so @Computer would then implicitly say that I have an internet connection.
So for the sake of argument, let's say I only have the tag @Computer. When doing a review of what I can do on the commute home, I would then need to check all @Computer marked items and then decide if I can do them or not. If instead, I could have searched for @Mac (and excluded @Internet from the search), I would immediately have know what would work for me in that situation.
And as to the point of rigid tag structures. Why not make them fluid then, so that you can re-arrange their relationships at any time?
Like levi pointed out, I also believe that we need to be able to construct searches such as "tagX" AND "tagY" or "tagX" OR "tagY".
Maybe this is just me talking out of my rear (but I need something to keep me occupied during the commute home), so please feel free to straighten me out ;).
7 Posted by levi on 18 Aug, 2011 04:14 PM
Let me ask you, is your commute home somewhere that you could actually take your computer out and start typing on it? I'm just thinking of the implications of your tagging. Personally for me, I'm really never in a situation where I have my computer out but am not connected to wifi. I'm connected at home, I'm connected at Starbucks, and if for some reason I'm somewhere where there's no connection (like my mom's), which is pretty rare since she lives in a different state, I can tether it to my phone, so essentially I always have a connection. I do so much online that really @computer for me is synonymous with online! Maybe that's not the case for you. It does get tricky when you have this complex relationship. It's almost like a tag dependency. You can have stuff that only requires a computer, or stuff that requires a computer AND being online, but in essence that @online tag implies BOTH @computer and @online. IE, you can't be @online without a computer. Ok, well, I suppose you can through your phone, but that just complicates things further! If you do have a smartphone like myself and can do stuff online, @online either needs to be understood by you as only for @computer, or you need to have a separate @phone. But then @phone would imply @online, right? Ok, maybe you are traveling somewhere that doesn't have access. Man, this gets ridiculous!
I guess this is why so far I've tried to keep the number of contexts down as much as possible. Mine are:
computer: (any computer - presumed with internet) phone: (any phone, but presumed as also being somewhere that I can make a call interrupted, so at home with the kid is usually not included in that, nor at a starbucks where it can be pretty noisy and I might not want to be sharing my personal conversations!) home: at my house office: where I work away: essentially driving around where I might be able to pick up things, do errands, etc.
That's it. I feel like there's not a whole lot of fine-grain chategorizing I need to do. I mix this with personal and work and freelancejob areas of interest. Actually freelancejob isn't the actual name, it's the name of the company/service that I do this work for. So far this has been effective, but I also am really just starting, having only been a user for a few weeks, and so we'll see how this works in the long-haul...
8 Posted by Proximo on 18 Aug, 2011 06:33 PM
All of you have great points and I always learn something new with all the great input on these forums.
Context will be different depending on the person and what they do for a living.
I was just stepping back and thinking that "Smart List" would probably help out a lot with this type of scenario.
You could create custom smart list that could filter task based on a combination of triggers. This would allow flexibility but keep things simple at the same time.
There is nothing wrong with having more than one context on a task, but making a complex structure to satisfy different combinations of when you could do something is probably too complex.
What if you could add a context as you do today and then have a related context section for the different combinations? This would allow you to keep your context simple but add more filtering options for the specific task that require it. You could then use these "Related Context/Tags" in the Smart List functionality to drill down as you wish.
Blah. I brain hurts just thinking about it. I keep things simple because I have proven time and time again, that I get more done when I focus on my actions and not my system.
I understand that we all have different situations and having a simple way of addressing them is always nice, but I found that early on, I was complicating things for no reason. :-)
I still don't think I have everything figured out, but I do know that the tweaks I do along the way have made me more productive. These tweaks have all been related to simplification and not adding complexity to my system. :-)
9 Posted by Jeff Maynes on 18 Aug, 2011 07:02 PM
One lesson it took me awhile to come around to was the use of my normal working routine as a baseline and building my tag scheme around that. For example, I have four offices (home, two universities where I teach, university where I am doing my grad work). Each has the same basic set of capabilities, but with some differences. I need a tag for each location. But what good is it to tag 95% of my tasks with all four tags, because they can be done at any of them?
The ability to do simple AND boolean searches on tags allows me to replace the four tags with a simple combination. All tasks get an "anywhere" tag if location is not important, then sub-tags based on location or resource-specific restrictions. Then when I'm at my home office, for example, I just check the "anywhere" tag and the "home" tag and I have all the relevant tasks.
I only add a tag for a location or resource if in some significant range of tasks, I will disassociate that resource from my usual working context. That does mean that one drawback of this simplification is that I'll occasionally be somewhere where my normal working environment is messed up and I can't easily drill down through my tasks. Usually these are based on things that already exist in my calendar and I can plan ahead, and if not, I think that the time required to manually evaluate my tasks is made up by the time I save the rest of the year with a simple and quick tagging system.
In other words, like Eluvren, I have a number of resources which are nearly ubiquitous. I just don't bother to make distinctions within that group unless it is sufficiently likely that I'll have limited access to those resources.
10 Posted by Geert on 18 Aug, 2011 08:15 PM
This is an interesting discussion ! :-)
I agree with Proximo (and Jeff) that to work efficiently, you have to keep things simple.
If you have only five contexts, you'll assign context to a task much quicker than if you have ten contexts (and/or combinations) to choose from. This means that you'll spend less time processing tasks, and more time doing them.
So: simple is good. And sometimes, yes, this means sacrificing a little flexiblity.
If I want to check reservations, and I can do this either on a) any computer, b) my computer or c) by phone (this being the above example of @Elurven), then most of the time, I will choose one specific context. I may decide that I'll check the reservations the next time that I'm on my computer, or I may decide to make it a phone call, but not both.
Theoretically, I lose some flexibility, because if I put it on my @computer list, and I have a chance to make some calls first, it won't show up. But I gain a lot of simplicity: one context to add when processing, and one context to scan when doing stuff.
And, considering that we are frequently spending time at or having access to most of our contexts (how many times does a day go by that you don't spend time at your computer, or don't have your phone with you, or ...), there isn't much speed or advantage to be gained by assigning multiple contexts.
@Jeff Maynes I had my reply to the previous posts all typed out when I read your post. Things may of course get a little more complicated than I described when you have 4 offices. :-) But then again, you too make a case for keeping it simple by not making distinctions if you can help it.
11 Posted by Elurven on 18 Aug, 2011 08:27 PM
Wow! How so much brain power landed in one forum still manages to baffle me :). The excellent points just keep coming and my head is continuing to spin out of control. But I think that I am leaning towards what seem to be the general idea here, that making things too complicated is a bad idea.
So, I'm back to my next action in the "Clarifying context" project: "Make a list of as few contexts as you can get by on, based on contexts used in the past". Hmm, maybe there's more than one action there such as "List previous contexts", "Investigate frequency of use of previously used contexts" etc. But hey, at least I know where to go next.
And to your point levi, yes, it is possible for me to take out my computer (or iPhone or iPad) and start banging away on the keyboard. And to be perfectly honest... yes, tethering is usually an option though I have a cap on 3GB per month and spotty coverage along the way. But the principal of the question interested me, so with the good old fashioned idea that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story, I just ran with it. So my apologies for that ;).
12 Posted by levi on 19 Aug, 2011 02:37 PM
No apologies necessary! Look at the amount of discussion you've generated, it's obviously something a lot of us think about albeit maybe not exactly the way you were. The point that Proximo usually likes to make is a good one here - whatever works best for you is what you should do. It's helpful to understand how others think about this of course because something that didn't occur to you might end up being much more effective than what you've done, even if it's not strictly "by the book."
Unfortunately for me, talking about such things is more fun than actually managing tasks and doing them, but really this is the main area that is still a bit mushy for me (as it seems to be for others). Nirvana has limitations in this area, but the open-endedness of tasks also means that people can come up with an almost infinite number of solutions, but at least we don't have the complexity of a tool like Toodledo or Remember the Milk. In Nirvana things are fairly constrained, whereas in those systems, things are more open, leading to greater possibilities and thus more propensity (for me anyway), to muck around and obsess about the system endlessly before actually USING it! :)
13 Posted by Proximo on 21 Aug, 2011 03:51 AM
Think of it this way.
Before GTD we lived in some sort of Chaos.
With GTD, we learned to manage that Chaos to some level and free up our brain for getting the right things done.
Now that we use GTD, we want to strap on a GTD Superhero cape and pretend that we will manage every detail possible, every combination possible and every scenario possible with our new found super powers.
We went from Chaos, to a good level of control and now we want to be GOD's.
I say we stick to having some good level of control in our lives and leave the Supreme control powers to the GOD's.
Just because you dive in front of a bus to save a child, does not mean you should try and fly around the world like some kind of superhero that will handle every situation known to man. :-)
Not sure if that makes sense.
Now excuse me while I get my costume on and make my rounds in the city. A superhero's work is never done. Ha...
14 Posted by Elurven on 21 Aug, 2011 09:24 AM
@Proximo ROTFL I totally get what you mean! It seems that one can never be content with things just working. The constant need for tinkering and fiddling seems to rear its ugly head, just as you thought you had stuff figured out. Although I have tried to hide the cape away in the darkest corners of the closet, it is always there, waiting to take me out on the next superhero mission. Up, up and away!
15 Posted by Geert on 21 Aug, 2011 10:28 AM
If only the tinkering wasn't so much FUN !
Honestly, I sometimes think that is the reason that I (and maybe a lot of other people) like GTD so much:
:-)
16 Posted by Elurven on 21 Aug, 2011 10:43 AM
@Geert +1 ;-)
17 Posted by levi on 21 Aug, 2011 03:12 PM
Proximo, your comment reminded me of a segment on one of my favorite shows, Radiolab. It was about cells in our body, perhaps neurons in particular, are pretty chaotic in how they function. That is, if you seperate them out. There's a lot of "noise" in the signal. But the brain as a unit of billions (trillions?) of them have somehow managed to filter out the noise so that we can form coherent thoughts and have exquisite control over the muscles in our body.
Then of course you half folks like Ray Kurzweil who think we will be merging more and more with technology in the future, as we add electronics to our bodies (choclear implants, imaging displays that do similar things for the blind, not to mention all those prosthetic limbs). So will our noisy brains rebel from the order imposed by such things, or will we become more logical? I'm not sure, but I do know that the more we understand the inner workings of the brain, the more we can use those to our advantage in helping us get the things done that we deem as priorities (even if they are not priorities to the brain, since it evolved during a time that is very alien to how we live now).