Newbie Q: Which list manager: Evernote, MindManager or something else?

[Folke]

That means we probably will meet again over at their forum. I have a keen interest in GTDNext myself and hope it will have been developed to a more fully attractive state by next fall or so. I share your liking of multiple-level hierarchies and of built-in features for hiding dependent actions and sub-projects.

In the meantime I'll stay put with Doit. I really have very good use for their subtle colored priority indicators, and their list grouping feature (e.g. group the Next actions list by project or priority or context etc). And I also think it looks clean and nice, and their mobile apps are very snappy. The main thing I absolutely hate about Doit is the fact that they treat their Starred/Focus feature (called Today in Doit) as an entirely separate category (as an alternative to Next, Waiting etc) rather than as just a "flag", like in Nirvana, GTDNext, Zendone, Gmail and virtually every other app I have ever seen. Can you believe it - if you star a Next action it gets physically moved away from Next and onto the separate Today list! And they do not even agree that this is bad and must be changed! (But for sure they are not the only developer with funny ideas ;-) )

 

[Vickie]

I'm going to suggest you start with paper. You can search the forums here and find a lot of discussion about the benefits of paper but for me, the biggest benefit is that you really learn the concepts of GTD.

I really like the suggestion to start with paper and master the concepts first. This will help you narrow down your own "requirements" for an app or software. Otherwise, you could waste precious time and money trying to figure out what works for you. Also, there is something really amazing about paper that keeps drawing me back to it. For me, it's the difference between drawing a picture on my iPad Sketchbook vs. drawing on paper. It just feels much more "real".

Hope this helps!
Vickie

 

[Ship69]

One thing about paper is at what point (if ever) do you copy an Action off a sheet of paper? I mean if a sheet of paper only has say literally only one or two Actions on it, with all the other actions on the page done, do you keep still it?

 

[Oogiem]

One thing about paper is at what point (if ever) do you copy an Action off a sheet of paper? I mean if a sheet of paper only has say literally only one or two Actions on it, with all the other actions on the page done, do you keep still it?

When I've done paper I kept the aper until everything was checked off. If something hung on for too long it was a trigger to decide if the project was really necessary at that time or did it really belong in someday/maybe.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Ship69, I can see now you're stuck where I once was, wasting your time with "productivity porn" which gives the illusion of productivity but is actually the opposite. Think about how many worthwhile things you could have accomplished in the time you've taken evaulating list apps. It's time you can never get back.

I think you know what you need to do, but you don't want to do it. Trust me, I know it's a tough message to hear. It was a bitter pill to swallow when people said it to me. You may not even be ready for it now. My hope is that I'm not the only one giving you this advice and whether now or later all of it will hit critical mass and begin to resonate.

You mentioned having dyslexia. I have ADHD. I'm sure there are resources out there that can help you overcome the ways in which your condition makes organizing and doing your work difficult. You may even be engaged with some of them now. I think that's a better place to start than in a forum like this.

The most successful people I know do not spend one iota of time obsessing about productivity books, tools, or whatever. They know what to do and they get it done. I'm betting if you really think about the most successful people you know the same is true of them.

This is not to say I am opposed to GTD. In fact I am a practitioner of GTD. The suggestions in the book can be useful but only if you use them in the service of actually doing your work. Searching for the perfect productivity software is work avoidance.

 

[Ship69]

Searching for the perfect productivity software is work avoidance.

Yes, I agree it started to become work avoidance.

But I realized this and became more and more furious that there was so much OBVIOUSLY wrong with the existing tools. Frankly almost nothing I could find was even usable - mostly because data entry by keyboard was too painful.

This meant that the task of finding something that was even vaguely up to the job has been extremely hard.

I am resisting going back to paper partly because I can see that if executed in even a vaguely sensible way, a digital tool would be massively helpful particularly to a semi-dyslexic like me.

For now I have now started using the web application GTDNext. Which is OK but very new...

Fwiw, I mainly choose GTDNext because
a) It has multi-level Actions & Projects, with the easy moving an item between the two categories
b) Unlike many of these tools - such as Evernote - it automatically builds you your Next Action list.
c) Fast entry using just the keyboard i.e. You can bang things in pretty quickly just using the keyboard.

On the down-side GTDNext does not have any Andriod or Windows applications, so you have to be online to use it.
Worse because it is so young (it has only been running for a few months) it is still slightly clunky and a little bit buggy. I have only been using GTDNext for a few days and I am hoping that the buggy-iness is not going to prove a deal-breaker. If so, this will be INTENSELY irritating if I am forced to abandon GTDNext being as I have already spent quite a lot of time entering my Projects and Actions.

If I am forced to abandon GTDNext while I wait for it to mature, I really don't know what else I would use.

e.g. ToDoist would be has multiple levels, but it is WAY too fiddly to enter items (i.e. just with the keyboard), so forget it.

MyLifeOrganised has multiple levels and automated Next Actions, and keyboard entry seems okay... in fact it might just do me if I do have to abandon GTDNext. Interestingly it also hassomething which is really important to me, which is the ability to move Projects and Actions up and down the screen using hotkeys, which (I think) is something that GTDNext does not offer... AND it has colour markingup (dangerous to our GTD habits but actually v useful!)

BUT
- it keeps moaning saying "This move is not allowed for this view" e.g. If you put it into Project View. (WTF?)
- MyLifeOrganised has evolved to become FAR too complicated (i.e. too many menu options & consequently too long a learning curve) to ever gain mainstream popularity.
- All the explainer videos seem to be in Russian after 6+ years of trading seems pretty worrying.

 

[CJSullivan]

Yes, it all comes down to your desired end result. Do you want to find the perfect bathing suit because you want to be more comfortable when you swim, or do you want to find a bathing suit that will offer adequate protection so you can swim to the other shore? For everyone there's got to be a balance between form and function, process and product. You clearly have a vision of how you want your work experience to be, but do you have as clear a vision of what you want your work to be about? You are not alone - every one of us, if we're honest, has fallen into the trap of placing more importance on process than on outcomes. The trick is to sacrifice neither for the sake of the other.

 

[Ship69]

No, mostly I just want the best suit to get me to the other shore fastest.
I think GTD on paper is OK but rather cumbersome.
I just want something better than paper, otherwise I shall revert to paper (or simplistic use of MindManger hotkeys to change using sort orders)

 

[PeterW]

PeterW what do you make of GTDNext? And what tools/applications do you use for GTD?

Apologies for the late reply. This new forum software doesn't automatically alert me when someone posts to a thread I'm participating in. Harrumph!!!

Anyway... I haven't looked at GTDNext so don't know what it can/can't do. I avoid looking at other productivity apps because the one I use works well for me.

I use Appigo's Todo on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. They also have a web interface and I used this in my previous job where the IT environment was Windows-based. Everything syncs between devices seamlessly. Todo is not specific for GTD but it provides contexts, tags (which I use for the standard GTD buckets) and it has projects (i.e. parent tasks with subtasks). Regarding email - Todo has email-to-inbox so whenever I have an email that needs to be a task I send it to Todo and later I will process it into an actionable task.

For keeping additional material (notes and files) I use Notebooks App which is available for iOS, Mac and Windows. This app can also do task management but I just use it for keeping handy access to text files, PDFs, links to web-based material, etc. It syncs via DropBox which I like to use too.

My piece of advice is to keep your system as simple as you can. It needs to have enough features to enable you to efficiently manage what you've got to get done. You don't want a complex system that sucks you into a vortex where you are spending lots of time managing the data itself rather than actually doing things.

 

[Ship69]

I just had a look at Todo, which sounds interesting.
Sadly it looks like there is no Windows application. And I couldn't see any way to create and account online.
How many layers of sub-task does Todo allow?
Also does it help generate a Next Action for each project (I think this is important for GTD, no?)
Thanx

 

[Folke]

Do you mean Appigo?

I think it has three levels, called List, Project and Task. I personally found it impossible (for me) to set up with GTD ticklers etc, but some say this is possible. If I recall correctly it has no automated activation of subsequent next actions etc when previous actions are completed. In fact I do not think it has any feature to help you differentiate even manually between now active actions and such upcoming, dependent, still not possible, actions.

You ask if such automation is important fopr GTD. Well, what is important is that only true next actions (and waiting for actions) are listed on your "active" GTD lists, and that all the rest, i.e. the subsequent or dependent tasks (that are termed "project support" in GTD, along with other support material) are kept from polluting your active lists. When one or more next actions have been completed from your active GTD lists, you can move additional ones from "project support" either manually or automatically.

I personally use a manual review every time I complete a few project actions, because I have not found an app app that is acceptable overall and also has automation that allows me to have more than one next/waiting action active in each project. (Some apps can in fact do this but are not quite my cup of tea in other respects. And I refuse to use the rigid on-at-a-time automation that some apps have.)

 

[sesteph6]

Folke, I always enjoy your comments and learn a lot from your insights. My question is based on the idea of only seeing the next action. Seems to be inconsistent with the official GTD principal. In fact, on the recent on the focus to set up guide it is specifically recommended to use parallel tasks into never use sequential. The idea being that some projects have tasks that can be completed simultaneously and that it is important to see all options when looking at the neck at the next actions list. I'm just trying to reconcile the two points of view, as they seem to differ.

 

[Folke]

sesteph6? ship69? Are you the same guy?

Anyway, I am not sure I understand what sources you are referring to, but it is a well-known fact on this forum that DA recognizes the fact that there can be more than one next action in a project and emphasizes the need for identifying them all. At the same time, lots of people on various app forums and similar places claim that GTD only allows one.

I think you can easily answer this yourself:

Is it sometimes possible, in some projects, that more than one action is perfectly possible to do right now, not in any way dependent on some other action being completed first? Obviously, yes.

Is there then some other advantage to artificially serializing perfectly possible actions? Well, not that I would recommend it, but yes, you can thereby artificially reduce the length of your next actions list and make it less daunting. This can be quite dangerous, but need not always be, especially if the serialized actions require very similar energy and context etc, and/or if the project as a whole is not urgent. But I prefer to keep my next actions list accurate and complete. It is simpler for me to use the same methodology consistently for all projects.

 

[sesteph6]

No different people. I'm referring to the new omnifocus 2 set up guide. In the video Kelly specifically states the importance of not using the feature that requires 1 project next action to be complete in order to see the next. I'll rewatch to make sure I'm not mistaken.

 

[Folke]

When I used Nirvana I gave up on their corresponding feature, too, and managed it manually instead. I often have 1-5 next (or waiting) actions in each project (plus additional ones that are dependent, not yet relevant).

 

[sesteph6]

Folke, could u elaborate on what u like about doit.im vs omnifocus? Thanks !!

 

[Folke]

Sorry. I have never tried Omnifocus. (I don't have a Mac.)

I know, though, that Omnifocus has quite powerful custom lists (called "perspectives" in Omnifocus, what in other apps is often called "saved searches" or "smart lists" etc). This can be handy if you don't get the lists you need out of the box, but I imagine in a good GTD app like Omnifocus you would not need that as much as you do in apps such as Toodledo or RTM. Doit, too, has these custom lists (called "advanced global filters" in Doit), but they are poorly implemented. I would have used some if they had been more flexible and powerful.

I also know that Omnificus, just like Doit, has this old boring paper inspired approach to contexts - that you can only apply one. Many apps, such as Nirvana, Zendone and GTDNext allow any number simultaneously, which is more realistic, but since neither of those apps have the corresponding flexibility in their filtering capabilities it has limited value. Omnifocus allows contexts to be defined hierarchically, which is a significant plus. For example, you could define Supermarket as a sub-context under Errands, and see it both when you look at Supermarket and when you look at Errands as a whole. On the other hand, Doit also has "Tags", i.e. contexts that you can let overlap and filter by, but they are invisible in the tasks list (booh!), and, just like in Toodledo, they are uncoordinated with the Contexts.

On Doit's forum there are quite a few people who say they come from Omnifocus and so much prefer the flexibility of Doit - but perhaps on Omnifocus's forum there are people who say the opposite. I know of at least one person who has used both Nirvana and Doit and moved to Omnifocus, apparently to stay.

Both apps have some stuff that I do not care for. For example, both of them have special date-based "review" features that I regard as pure bloat (but some people love them).

As for attention flagging, which I regard as an important type of feature, I believe Omnifocus has the standard type of flag (just like in Gmail or anywhere), whereas Doit has two - one is a non-standard and extremely weird "forced moving" of actions away from their list to a special Today list (this is really bad and annoying). The other one (which I love) is a half-standard "priority" indicator implemented as a colored line in three colors, which I find indispensable. I use it for assigning tasks to different review cycles.

 

[JamesT]

As for attention flagging, which I regard as an important type of feature, I believe Omnifocus has the standard type of flag (just like in Gmail or anywhere), whereas Doit has two - one is a non-standard and extremely weird "forced moving" of actions away from their list to a special Today list (this is really bad and annoying). The other one (which I love) is a half-standard "priority" indicator implemented as a colored line in three colors, which I find indispensable. I use it for assigning tasks to different review cycles.

Hi Folke - Curious to hear more of your thoughts on what you don't like about the Today list. Is it just that particular implementation of it? Or the idea in general?

 

[Folke]

No, I love to have a Today list, Focus list, Starred list - lots of names - and most apps have one that works just fine: GTDNext, Nirvana, Zendone, Toodledo, Gmail, GDrive ....

Normally, in those apps, what happens when you star/focus/flag something is:

- you will see the task marked with an icon on all lists (makes the task easier to see)
- you can also see this task and other starred/focused/flagged tasks on a special list (called Starred or Focus or Today etc)
- no data is tampered with (e.g. no start dates, due dates etc are changed just because you star a task)

In Doit, rhough, it does not work like this. Instead, these tasks are brutally moved away from Next or Waiting etc and put only on a separate Today list. That's what I don't like. Also, the start date is changed to today's date. I don't like that either. All in all, they treat these tasks as if they had been calendar scheduled for today.

And they have now also taken away the flag icon (the star) - well, not that it matters, removing it is actually consistent with their unusual implementation, since in their case there can be no starred tasks on any list anywhere except on the Today list.

The beauty of having the normal kind of starred/focus list is that you can mark whatever you want for your convenient attention without changing anything at all about the task, and you can un-mark it, thus leaving everything intact.

There can be many different kinds of reasons why you would want to have a task starred for your convenient attention:
- you have decided to do this task today (next action or calendar action)
- you have decided to aim to do this task today (next action)
- you expect delivery of this task result today (waiting for action) and may need to stick around and/or remind or thank people
- you have decided to review (reconsider/modify/double-check) this task today (any kind of action)
- the item is new (automatically starred for your attention, either arriving from email or from the tickler/scheduled)

 

[Oogiem]

No different people. I'm referring to the new omnifocus 2 set up guide. In the video Kelly specifically states the importance of not using the feature that requires 1 project next action to be complete in order to see the next. I'll rewatch to make sure I'm not mistaken.

That is a decent way to set it up and is in the new set-up guide. I however fnd that it is inappropriate for 90% of my projects so I ignore it. The problem with sequential projects is that until you finish the top task you may miss other tasks that can be done in the context you are in that are not dependent on the current next action. My world is rarely like that. I nearly always MUST finish the top task before the next one is even possible to finish so I set my defailt dofferent;y.

The Set-up guide is meant to be a simple 2way to get going with GTD and the various tools not the be-all end-all of a final functioning system for your life.