Computer contexts and prioritization

[Tom_Hagen]

There was once an interesting thread here about "computer" contexts like Libre Office Calc, Notepad++, etc., i.e. according to the tool. Out of curiosity, I would like to ask whether - if anyone uses such a solution - when you are in the context of a given tool and have tasks of different priority, do you try to complete all tasks - even those of lower priority - or do you first complete high-priority tasks, switch context (tool), then only high-priority tasks, etc. I know that choosing a task to complete is also a matter of intuition in a sense, but I would like to know what this practice looks like for others.

 

[Mike Taku]

Hi there, I hope you are doing well.
Can I ask you that, when using different tools like LibreOffice Calc or Notepad++, how do you manage tasks with different priorities? Do you focus on finishing all tasks, including lower-priority ones, or do you prioritize the high-priority tasks first and switch tools as needed?
Thank You,
Mike Taku.

 

[mcogilvie]

I have tried these micro-contexts a few times, but it’s been several years. I now have access to most of my most-used digital tools on my desktop, tablet, phone, and in some cases, my watch. However, there are a few specialized apps for which my desktop computer is necessary, and there are some things I prefer to do on a larger screen. That is more important to me than the app I am using. Many activities involve the use of more than one app anyway, and I have found that fewer contexts makes it easier to prioritize.

 

[fooddude]

I don't split by tool. I just have an @computer list. These are tasks I can do at a computer or on my phone. I do have a context @phone for things I can only do on my phone. Like calls and text. I don't put computer like stuff on my @phone list. I do not prioritize next actions.

 

[Oogiem]

"computer" contexts like Libre Office Calc, Notepad++, etc., i.e. according to the tool. Out of curiosity, I would like to ask whether - if anyone uses such a solution - when you are in the context of a given tool and have tasks of different priority, do you try to complete all tasks -

I split by tool a lot and even by piece within a tool. When I am in the context of a tool, like #Context/LibreOffice I tend to do everything in that context I can do until I feel a need or desire to move to a new context. I do not prioritize my tasks at all. They are just next actions in a specific context. It's when I get fatigued working in that context or I reach a natural stopping point (coffee break, timed event I have to attend, bears coming in to attack sheep, sheep baaing in distress that need immediate action) or whatever that I stop and decide when I return whether to continue on working in the very specific context or to switch contexts.

For one of my contexts, #Context/Obsidian that has become too broad since I do so much in that app now that I am slowly, over time, splitting it into more finely tuned contexts. Those are usually based on the topic or subject matter I am working with.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

Thank you for your replies. I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of priorities. For example, at work I have projects that must be done and those that can be done. Priorities allow me to distinguish one from the other.

In the case of @Oogiem, it's almost begging for context: #Bear and the next action: Talk to the bear that he's behaving badly towards sheep. But that's just my suggestion

 

[Lucas W.]

I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of priorities. For example, at work I have projects that must be done and those that can be done. Priorities allow me to distinguish one from the other.

I wouldn’t recommend this approach. But if you really want to go for it, make sure your to-do lists don’t turn into wish lists.

 

[bishblaize]

Thank you for your replies. I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of priorities. For example, at work I have projects that must be done and those that can be done. Priorities allow me to distinguish one from the other.

In the case of @Oogiem, it's almost begging for context: #Bear and the next action: Talk to the bear that he's behaving badly towards sheep. But that's just my suggestion

For most people, time frames for project completion are measured in weeks and months, not days. So if its Monday morning and I know I need to make some solid progress on a project this week, it doesn't matter if I do it Monday morning or Friday afternoon. Just because you have something important to do, it may not change the order of your next actions during the week. You just need to get the project done on time. Since the greater understanding of time frames comes at the Project level, not the Next Action level, it means prioritisation at the NA level is sometimes not worth the investment.

The other thing is that GTD explicitly avoids simplistic prioritisation. One of the ideas of GTD is that its an evolution away from the old forms of ABC prioritisation, and instead encourages you to be on top of your workloads, so that you can intuitively be aware of your priorities. Your priorities exist at a tonne of different levels, and they can't really be boiled down to be sideways comparable. The fact you need to fix a squeaky draw and your desire to retire in financial comfort are two radically different things, and yet both might have Next Actions related to them in your list right now. So trying to prioritise one over the other makes no sense, they're not really comparable things.

Which isn't to say that there's no good prioritisation. Due Dates are a form of priority, most people will use those. Some people like time blocking if they need to crack on with a certain piece of work. Or even just sticking a star, flag or reminder on the odd NA so that you're more confident you won't forget it can be good. So there's room for it, and obviously jobs all differ. Its just that, in practice, you don't get a lot of gains vs the effort spent in assessing your Next Actions and extensively prioritising them.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

I wouldn’t recommend this approach. But if you really want to go for it, make sure your to-do lists don’t turn into wish lists.

I didn't understand your message. Can you explain in more detail what you mean?

 

[Tom_Hagen]

[...]

The other thing is that GTD explicitly avoids simplistic prioritisation. One of the ideas of GTD is that its an evolution away from the old forms of ABC prioritisation, and instead encourages you to be on top of your workloads, so that you can intuitively be aware of your priorities. Your priorities exist at a tonne of different levels, and they can't really be boiled down to be sideways comparable. The fact you need to fix a squeaky draw and your desire to retire in financial comfort are two radically different things, and yet both might have Next Actions related to them in your list right now. So trying to prioritise one over the other makes no sense, they're not really comparable things.
[...]

GTD contains four factors for choosing an action: context, time, energy and priorities. In this exact order, because each of these factors can be a limiting element. I think that they are there so that when browsing lists I don't have to go back to the analysis and clarification stage every time. Being in the context of #computer I can have actions that I have to do (e.g. related to work) and e.g. reading an economic article. The first one has to be done, I can postpone reading until the evening (when I have lower energy). Priorities in GTD have nothing to do with the ABC approach or the Eisenhower matrix.

 

[mcogilvie]

Thank you for your replies. I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of priorities. For example, at work I have projects that must be done and those that can be done. Priorities allow me to distinguish one from the other.

David Allan recommends choosing next actions on the basis of context, time available, energy and other resources available, and priority, in that order. He also recommends using the calendar for hard due dates. In practice, I find neither recommendation is quite right for me, although they are useful. Let’s assume that I have a collection of projects and next actions which I want or need to do. I have a high degree of control over my context most of the time. Time available is important, but that works at many levels. In practice, I find awareness of significance, for which priority is a crude proxy, and awareness of timeliness, which due dates partially represent, are the main drivers of how I steer things at all levels. The question then becomes: how do I build sufficient awareness into my system? I think there’s a reason that stars/flags for importance combined with due dates have become more popular in task management apps than 123 priorities. It’s enough for a lot of people.

 

[fooddude]

Thank you for your replies. I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of priorities. For example, at work I have projects that must be done and those that can be done. Priorities allow me to distinguish one from the other.

In the case of @Oogiem, it's almost begging for context: #Bear and the next action: Talk to the bear that he's behaving badly towards sheep. But that's just my suggestion

David Allen recommends contexts more than priority. Of course, somethings are more important. You can have buy anniversary present on your @errands list but if you buy it after your anniversary, it's not good. Any hard dates should be on your calendar. The system keeps things you can't do off your mind. For example, you can't mow your lawn while @work. You should only see mow lawn on your @home list.

 

[bishblaize]

GTD contains four factors for choosing an action: context, time, energy and priorities. In this exact order, because each of these factors can be a limiting element. I think that they are there so that when browsing lists I don't have to go back to the analysis and clarification stage every time. Being in the context of #computer I can have actions that I have to do (e.g. related to work) and e.g. reading an economic article. The first one has to be done, I can postpone reading until the evening (when I have lower energy). Priorities in GTD have nothing to do with the ABC approach or the Eisenhower matrix.

The first 3 filter down your options, and then you choose what to do. However GTD advocates making the decision about what to do based on a solid understanding of all your work, not by externally ranking them in any way. The reason for this being that your life is too complicated for any simplistic prioritisation system to match, and a complicated system is more effort than its worth to maintain.

The way I read your previous post, you implied that you did this, tagging mandatory and non-mandatory actions. If all your Next Actions fall into two simple categories, mandatory or optional, then that could be a useful step. Speaking for myself through, that doesn't even begin to cover the different considerations I have when assessing priorities.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

[...]
The way I read your previous post, you implied that you did this, tagging mandatory and non-mandatory actions. If all your Next Actions fall into two simple categories, mandatory or optional, then that could be a useful step. Speaking for myself through, that doesn't even begin to cover the different considerations I have when assessing priorities.

My approach comes from the fact that I really try to put everything in my system (I use Evernote). Hence, generalizing the context to #computer, there will be not only actions like refactoring function A but also watching episode NN of the XYZ series. Tagging in Evernote allows me to easily filter out, for example, pleasant things (yes, I have such a priority) that I can do on Sunday, when I'm not working. Hence my initial question to people who use a similar approach: to what extent (priority) do they implement actions in a given context. It is obvious to me that being at work (#computer) after refactoring function A I will not start watching a series or playing chess (also context #computer). Many people who replied to me here do not use priorities. I understand that, I understand that some may not note books to read, films to see, longplays to listen to, etc., but such an approach is not interesting to me in my case. I like to have everything written down.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

Hi there, I hope you are doing well.
Can I ask you that, when using different tools like LibreOffice Calc or Notepad++, how do you manage tasks with different priorities? Do you focus on finishing all tasks, including lower-priority ones, or do you prioritize the high-priority tasks first and switch tools as needed?
Thank You,
Mike Taku.

I don't have a definitive approach, hence my question. I'm looking for inspiration from others

 

[bishblaize]

My approach comes from the fact that I really try to put everything in my system (I use Evernote). Hence, generalizing the context to #computer, there will be not only actions like refactoring function A but also watching episode NN of the XYZ series. Tagging in Evernote allows me to easily filter out, for example, pleasant things (yes, I have such a priority) that I can do on Sunday, when I'm not working. Hence my initial question to people who use a similar approach: to what extent (priority) do they implement actions in a given context. It is obvious to me that being at work (#computer) after refactoring function A I will not start watching a series or playing chess (also context #computer). Many people who replied to me here do not use priorities. I understand that, I understand that some may not note books to read, films to see, longplays to listen to, etc., but such an approach is not interesting to me in my case. I like to have everything written down.

That sounds like a conversation about how people use contexts, not how they prioritise. “Pleasant things” and “things I can do on a Sunday” I would not consider as priorities, but rather contexts.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

That sounds like a conversation about how people use contexts, not how they prioritise. “Pleasant things” and “things I can do on a Sunday” I would not consider as priorities, but rather contexts.

I don't think so. Context is something that limits me physically. It could be a room, a tool, a person, etc. Even such logical structures as email, calc, notepad++ can be imagined as something quasi-physical.

Priority answers the question: how important is it? Hence, pleasant things are closer to priorities than context.

 

[bishblaize]

I don't think so. Context is something that limits me physically. It could be a room, a tool, a person, etc. Even such logical structures as email, calc, notepad++ can be imagined as something quasi-physical.

Priority answers the question: how important is it? Hence, pleasant things are closer to priorities than context.

Contexts are only partly about limitations. They're more broadly a process of categorisation, storing alike actions together. This makes it easier to organise your work in general.

Sometimes it's helpful to categorise because you can ignore contexts that you cannot do right now, that's true, but that's not the only benefit to it. Sometimes it allows you to do bulk processing of work, such as by rattling out several emails one after another. Or maybe you're logged in to your website, and while you have it open, you knock of the other three Next Actions that you have related to it. Or maybe you just feel like making some phone calls, nothing deeper than that, so that's what you do.

This is particularly true in the modern era, when many people will do 95% of their actions at the same computer. People still find contexts valuable, but it isn't about what they're limited to doing. It's about the increased ability to find the right task, for reasons beyond simple limitations.

So in your case, "Pleasant things" is simply a category of your Next Actions, by my definition. Many people have "Easy" or "Quick" or "Braindead" as a context, they're very common, and this is the same sort of concept. It makes it easier to find the right next action in a given moment.

Ultimately, if you want to consider your examples as priorities not contexts, then it doesn't really matter as long as your system works for you. However it might explain why you believe other people are not using priorities. They may be, by they consider them as contexts.

 

[Lucas W.]

I didn't understand your message. Can you explain in more detail what you mean?

I suggest keeping “must-do” items separate from “can-do” items - this way, you might avoid the need for extra prioritization and you will shorten your primary to-do lists.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

I suggest keeping “must-do” items separate from “can-do” items - this way, you might avoid the need for extra prioritization and you will shorten your primary to-do lists.

That's what I do. My question isn't whether to do it, but how others in a certain context behave when they have completed all the "I have to do"s.