I have the old tools-based contexts. One thing I'd be wary of with the alternates you proposed is the "harder" contexts (@concentrating, @1hour) would become intimidating sinkholes that I'd never want to look at (as long as there is something on my @mindless and @5min lists).

I have tools-based contexts, but also separate contexts for "read" and "write."

These are my more time intensive tasks, and I try to set aside some time each day for them.

Miss Crankypants,

I am in the same boat as you. I live on my computer, and simply saying @Computer is like saying, @Awake. I too am trying to figure really make my projects, next actions and all things, more manageable.

I am going to try the @5, @15, @30, @60 contacts myself. I still have @Errands and @Outside, but the 5/15/30/60 is really just a subcontext of @Computer. So, I could say, @Computer-5, @Computer-15, @Computer-30, @Computer-60, and @Business/Work-5, @Business/Work-10, etc.

I suppose Next Actions that take longer than 60 minutes should probably be broken up into 2 or more next actions. In fact, it should probably be good of me to make nothing more than 30 minutes, for my own sanity.

But, still not 100% positive on my approach though. We shall see.

My attempt to solve this problem was to split up the "@ computer" context into
@ internet (look up phone numbers, downloads, driving directions, finding scientific papers to read, etc...)
@ computer working (word, omni outliner, excel, stats)
@ email

My other contexts are non-computer related
@reading on paper
@phone
@admin (anything that involves the administration people in the department)
@look into (which is becoming a place to hide projects and s/m, must work on this)
@waiting for
@long term purchase

I am afraid to create contexts based on time because I suck at evaluating how much time a task takes to complete, which is why I spent most of my time re-arranging my ical calendar prior to implementing GTD, because I was never done with the task scheduled and kept moving tasks around (which was a great way of avoiding to actually DO the work). My "tasks" were really smal projects too, so maybe it would work if you make sure that a next action is less than 30 minutes, as Scottw says.

One of the key realizations I've come to is that my contexts don't have to be the same from week to week. If I have a bunch of tasks that need to be done @ComputerWithSomeParticularPieceOfSoftware, I can create a context specifically for that purpose. When I'm done with it, that context can go away.

That said, I work from a home office, so subdividing @work is usually not useful to me; I thus have @work, @errand, @brainstorm (I'm a writer, so I have enough of these to warrant their own context) and @waiting. Most weeks, that's all I need.

-- Tammy

I've found that location and purpose based contexts work best for me. I have the standard "sit in a cube" office desk job so I was able to break home and work cleanly.

@calls - any phone conversations I need to have
@errands - anything not at home or work
@shopping: local - going to the store, any of them
@shopping: online - ebay, newegg, amazon
@work: Desk - the busiest list where most actions from projects go
@work: Depts - anything away from my desk, usually another department
@home - anything at home
@home: office - anything when I'm at my desk at home, yes it's the second biggest list

I find from there and my project lists I can evaluate what energy level I have and time commitment I can make.

I use the ThinkingRock software which includes Topics & Contexts.

I revised my Topics to include:

Inside (for inside home stuff)
Outside (for outside home stuff, yard, etc)
Business (for general business related stuff)
Client1 (Large Client of Mine)
Client2 (Large Client of Mine)
Personal (catch all if doesn't go above)

Contexts Are:

5min
10min
15min
30min
60min
Errands

This method has been less complicated for me since I did it the other day. It seems to make sense to me and my method of working (from home). This way, I can mix and match how I want.

I am probably breaking the GTD method by using contexts in this way, but I think the GTD method is more about getting things done in a way that works for you and not in the suggested method.

So, if I am going out in the yard for 30 minutes, I can check my Outside@30mins or Outside@15mins.... and the same thing applies to everything else. Errands is everything that involves leaving the house.

@Home
@Work
@Errands
@Internet
@Anywhere
@Agendas

Simple, with some necessary overlap.

These are the contexts I chose when designing my GTD web application:

Errand
Phone
Mail
Home
Office
Computer
Internet
Search
Finance
Time off, Hobby
Waiting-for
Later - maybe

I'm using all of them in my daily work.

However users started complaining about them being "too general" so I'm introducing custom-contexts later this week...

I guess especially "Computer" context is too big... it should be more specific - I'd need "Programming", or "Writing" contexts there to make it more useful.

I personally think that although contexts should be specific... if you have too many contexts, you can easily make your setup useless.

My 2 cents.

This is a great thread, and points at my number one question mark so far with implementing GTD. I've tried a variety of unconventional contexts such as:

@Finances
@Content/Writing
@Planning
@Errands
@Research

...and so on...because there are so MANY things I could be doing @Computer.

A good reason for doing this is if have a PDA like a Palm or a Pocket PC. Neither of those platforms really support user-defined fields like the project and sub-project fields created by David's Outlook Plug-in, and so if you want to be able to sort through things that fit into an area of your life, and not just tools, location, amount of energy, etc, then you can easily parse them (for example, @Finances).

I'm also using David Allen's Outlook plug-in, which by the way has just been updated and the new version is really great. Using that plug-in, you can organize your tasks by Project and Sub-project, and I'm always trying to strike a balance between keeping Projects descriptive and outcome-based enough that there doesn't need to be cross-over between contexts and projects.

The question I have is, when do non-convential contexts become counter-productive, and how do we know when we're falling into that trap? Isn't the methdology designed in such a way so that there is a clear line of demarkation between one context and another, and what it means to you personally? Would it be a good rule to say that the fewer contexts one has the better? From the standpoint of owning a PDA and wanting to get things done while you're on the road, this might not be the case. For example, I have a contexts called:

@Emails/Calls - Personal
@Emails/Calls - Work

...so that from a PDA I can differentiate what's important based on time of day and what I'm focused on. I don't separate Emails and Calls because there are somethings I could get done by picking up the phone, or by emailing, and which one I choose often depends on other things like the state of the relationship with that particular colleague or friend (when was the last time we talked?) or the state of the project I'm working on. Something I might have parsed as an email two days ago may now merit a phone call, so I keep the two together just in case.

I think the fundamental trap is that the more contexts we have, the less likely we are to see everything that needs to get done when we COULD be doing it, and motivation ourselves to work faster or harder. The downside to not personalizing contexts is that it might be a little harder to prioritize, and easier to get overwhelmed because you'd be looking at so many things in a single list. I'm definitely one of those people who - quite unconsciously - fills time with what I need to do regardless of how little or how much there is to do. If there isn't that much to get done, and it's an area I've been avoiding, I'm not going to move through it at break-neck speed.

Here's the other thing I've wondered about in this department. How do you decide if you want a separate context for someone in your life, e.g., @MyBoss, vs setting up an individual task under @Agendas to handle items with that person? What I've found is that if you use the separate context method, you can prioritize those things you need to talk about, and take notes on each one individually, and cross 'em off the list as they are no longer relevant. The downside is (at least using Outlook for this) is that you can't necessarily see a history of those things. At least with one task created under the @Agendas context, you can keep notes and a history of your interactions with that one person, actions agreed to, etc. If you care to share how you handle this, that would be great. You can also easily print this and make it portable.

Anyone else out there using the Outlook add-in? Again, and as others have pointed out here, I think the main downside of using unconventional contexts, is that you may be setting yourself up to avoid that context if it's something that you have trouble confronting.

As I'm sitting here writing this, I'm looking at my planning context and also thinking about playing with contexts like:

@Planning - Personal
@Planning - Work

I think we can probably parse this stuff 'till we're blue in the face. The problem is that contexts such as @Anywhere or @Home start to lose their meaning. Thoughts?