I think the point is to make the contexts as functional as possible. While I might be somewhat likely to ignore a Next action list titled for a particular area of responsibilty, it is extremely useful to me to do all (or most) of my email next actions at a single sitting.

Well put, Christopher.

I think a tendency I’ve had—and have tried hard to lick—is to get wrapped up in a fractal taxonomy loop. “Where does this go? Should I start a new sub-sub-list?” So your comment’s right on from where I sit.

I’ve felt for some time now that this is one piece that must vary widely from one person to another’s implementation strategy, but that the addition of extra contexts should always be in the service of more efficient action—not just to develop a more satisfying personal ontology. :-)

i try to keep my list taxonomy no more than one indent deep that way if there is a location on my list i can at least keep track of the several things that i need to pick up in the same place. :)

Software can really help with this. My NA list is comprised of all my contexts, but I can filter down to a specific context whenever I wish.

Nik, what software do you use?

I think of Contexts as “views” or “selects” on the big list of Next Actions.

I’m still figuring out GTD. I’m torn between making my lists very hierarchical with dependency trees between actions or making my lists long and category/tag/context searchable.

Also, Mark Taw seems to assume a Next Action only appears on one list. For example, his Next Action “buy oil” is on his @shopping list, but not his @car (gas station) list. Why not put it on BOTH lists? Lately, I’ve been thinking about “folksonomies” and de.licio.us-like tags for Next Actions. This is only viable with software, though. Why not let a Next Action have many tags, which can be context, location, people, and/or project names. Then your context or project lists are just subset views of your master list.

Chris,

I have also been struggling with the heirarchical view of tasks. I have not found the ideal program. I am toying with writing my own, but lack of time/skills at this point have stunted my efforts. A number of programs are close, particularly life-balance or bonzai (windows only).

But it would seem to me that the ideal app would view projects as outlines with lots of abilities to attach relevant documents, links, etc. as Omni Outliner does, but then make any given point or particularly subpoint a task that could link immediately to whatever PIM program (entourage or palm desktop) that you use with its context (calls, email) etc intact. I have other thoughts about this, but I haven’t found anything that quite does this.

interestingly, if you make outlines in MS Word 2004 in the “notebook layout” view, then any point in an outline can be made into an entourage task. However it is not given the category info as far as I can tell.

I agree that the right tool is important, but it’s critical to understand why the tool is there and to adjust expectations to accord with the stuff that a “dumb” tool does best.

It’s an artful balance, but I continually return to the side of simplicity over exhaustive “correctness.” I’d say time put into generating and maintaining multiple lists, categories, and facets can often be better spent on refactoring and simplifying the existing ones. (This definitely goes for me and my ontological library of shaded Entourage categories).

No matter how deep I get in taxonomy and “multiple locations,” I always return to the simplest single list I can handle. My secret temptation is always that some tool can do all the maintenance (read: “thinking”) for me, but ultimately, I still need to make decisions and be aware of “what’s where.” Adding a constant administrative layer and tending all those rabbits becomes its own endless project.

Anyhow. Not saying multiples, facets, or redundancy are necessarily bad—just that in my experience it can be a lot to maintain if it’s not paying consistently large rewards in enhanced action.

quite right.