> Since
@Oogiem convinced me that the flat, single level world is better I think
> "Categories within Categories within Categories" is a very bad idea.
OK, so from what I can see Oogiem is:
A) Using one folder (in her operating sytem?? folder system) for each of her projects.
B) Controlling which of her projects are live or not by physically moving these folders between higher level folders.(i.e. Presumably she has one folder for Live, another for Someday-Maybe, and possibly another Waiting etc
For this to work smoothly and avoid the necessity of going up and down the folders tree she burns the name of the Area of Responsibility (/Area of Life) into each project name. If you are controlling actionable status by physically moving stuff yes, I guess that does makes sense.
One down-side is of course that every single project needs to include the Area of Responsibility in the title.
But a greater down-side of using OS folders like this (if that is what she is doing) is that there is then presumably no way of doing more clever things such as:
- show the Next Action for each project
- allocating a Context to each of these actions
- creating a Tickler system by hiding (stuff e.g. projects) until certain dates
- flagging projects as "do today"
- manually change the sort order of projects to show relative priorities (important and/or urgent)
Also if you have to write the name of the Areas into even standalone tasks, surely this will become onerous. Either that or you can't see which standalone tasks are in which Areas.
Either way I like to have my larger Projects broken down into sub-projects. And also I like to sometimes have tasks sometimes broken down into sub-tasks, just so that I can see what is going on. And I'm not sure how that would be done with the above method of writing everything into one long flat, single-level world...
J