Items without tags and next action list
As a purely optional I would like the next list to be displaing only the tasks with tag
Is is truly actionable if you haven't decided the context yet?
Again, just an option
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
2 Posted by Proximo on 08 Dec, 2010 06:31 PM
@MarcinGTD
This is yet another reason things can get confusing when everything is a tag. I may have a task that belongs to an AoR (Which is a tag), so there is no way of filtering task by "No Tag". I think in N1 we did this by choosing the " - " in the tag area.
I created a new task while in the "Show All" AoR and made sure not to add any tags. No AoR, No context, No contact and No regular tags.
There is no way to filter out the task with no tags in N2 that I can see.
I have a problem with no separation of context and tags. I don't like to see my normal tags inside my context management area. Maybe I am weird but I like specific things to be controlled on their own.
"Is it truly actionable if you haven't decided the context yet?" As far as GTD rules, I would say NO to this question. When doing GTD on paper, the actionable task are in separate list based on context. If you have an Actionable task with no context, where would you put it?
In a digitized world, we can put all the actionable task in one list and quickly filter by a particular context. I love this about doing GTD with an application. But if you consider the traditional GTD way of doing things on paper. An Actionable task must have a context or it has no list to belong too.
Some GTD applications try to mimic the paper environment by having only context based list for your actionable task, but I don't care for that model. Why mimic the limitation of paper when you are using a digital version that is far more convenient to manipulate quickly.
I digress as usual.
3 Posted by Rique on 09 Dec, 2010 04:35 AM
Wow. If it is in your Inbox, unprocessed, you should know it is not actionable, yes? If you process it, you should assign a context when processing.
I think I'm missing something here, please forgive me. How can a processed task not have a context? Hrmmmm?
I guess I don't see the issue.
@Proximo, if you have no context, to my way of thinking you have not processed the task yet. Am I off base?
4 Posted by Proximo on 09 Dec, 2010 04:49 AM
@Rique
You are correct.
The point I am making is that in N1 you could show task without tags and in N2 you can't. Sometimes you may hit enter by mistake and cause a task to be processed without all the information. I have done this from time to time, but I could always see which task in my Next List where put in there by mistake. If the "No Label" option was available, I could click it and properly finish tagging the task that got away.
MarcinGTD is asking for the opposite. He wants to filter the task without tags which is probably something I would not want to do because it's the opposite of what I really wanted. I want to find the ones that got away and MarcinGTD wants to hide the ones that got away. :-)
Not trying to question if this is right or wrong from MarcinGTD's perspective but the fact of the matter is that things are a little harder to deal with because everything in N2 is a tag.
Having a No Tag option now means that a task has nothing. No AoR, No Contacts and No Context. In N1 a task could have an AoR and a contact but no tag. This is not the goal if the task is in the Next list because it should have a context/tag, but at least you could identify them.
Hope that made sense.
I did mention in my original response to MarcinGTD that a task that has no context is not truly actionable. :-)
5 Posted by Rique on 09 Dec, 2010 05:00 AM
Proximo, you stated that so well, I have nothing to add! I get what you are saying. YES, we should have a means to output a list of those that "got away". :)
6 Posted by Kenny Grant on 09 Dec, 2010 10:54 AM
IMO it's possible a tickler could have no context but is still actionable - most of my ticklers are actually questions or reminders to myself so they don't have a context.
7 Posted by haeffb on 09 Dec, 2010 02:39 PM
I usually don't take the time to add context, time and energy to my tasks. GTD-lite, if you will, but it works for me.
8 Posted by Proximo on 09 Dec, 2010 09:36 PM
@Kenny
Good point on a tickler. Scheduled task act like ticklers but the naming makes you think that it can't be just a simple reminder. I would love to have Scheduled task and Reminders in Nirvana. Don't care for the Tickler name too much. :-)
@haeffb
GTD can adapt to what ever your needs are. It's perfectly fine to implement a GTDlite if it works better for you. I don't actually implement 100% of GTD neither. :-)
Although I always add Time, Energy and Context to all my task. In my line of work the Context is not something I filter by as often. I am sitting in front of my Computer most of the day which gives me access to 3 of my context. Computer, email, online.
About 12 inches to my left I have my Phone for all the @call context. This covers most of my major context so I normally don't filter by them when at work. I do use the context when I choose to focus on email task or online task. Depends on my mood.
Do what works is the best rule.
9 Posted by haeffb on 10 Dec, 2010 02:34 PM
@Proximo I was just responding to the statement: "a task that has no context is not truly actionable."
Consider the task "think about life's purpose." What context should apply? @brain? @awake?
10 Posted by Proximo on 10 Dec, 2010 03:03 PM
@haeffb
By basic GTD rules an actionable task should have a context but I understand that we all do things differently.
The idea of GTD is to have list split up into context of your actionable task. So not having one in a paper based GTD system would mean it has no list to belong too. It's much easier in the Digital versions of GTD to break some of these rules.
I don't consider "Think about life's purpose" as an actionable task. That is just a thought. What does doing look like for this though? You must have clearly defined the Next Action from this though before it moves to your Next List. It's possible that you could define it better at a alter time and therefore you have not decided what context it belongs too. But in this example, I would not consider the though a processed action yet because it has no clear outcome. This will be something still in my inbox or Someday list.
You could see this differently than me and that's perfectly ok. I just don't see what doing looks like for this. What is the actual Next Action?
I would process this as a Project because life's purpose is probably more complicated than just one Next Action.
Project: Think about life's purpose
- List what matters most to me
- Determine what I would consider a fruitful life
- Develop a Vision and Goal that would get me there
- Start working toward my Vision and Goals by identifying things I need to be doing
Just an example. I did not put much though into the list above so please don't pick it apart. :-)
My only point is that an actionable task must be clearly defined in order for you to know what needs to take place. "Think about life's purpose" is more of a thought than an actual Next Action so it probably would not have a context. Once you determine what that thought means and structure it as a Project with actionable steps, you are more clearly defining what it means and what doing looks like. This is when the context should kick in. All your Next Actions should have some form of a context by basic GTD rules.
This however does not mean you must add context. Like I said earlier. You don't have to implement 100% of GTD in order for it to work for you. Some implement more of the methodology than others, but I would consider context as a basic rule for all actionable task. :-)
Wow. How did I type such a long response for this? Need to eat some breakfast.
11 Posted by Rique on 10 Dec, 2010 03:06 PM
Proximo, I used to think that I had "a way with words". Then I got to know you in two different forums and I realize now I am just a pretender. ;)
12 Posted by Proximo on 10 Dec, 2010 03:10 PM
@Rique
Thanks for the kind words. I don't really think I have a way with words, but I sure appreciate that you think so. :-)
David McLaughlin closed this discussion on 11 Feb, 2011 06:15 PM.