I am not sure if I am understanding your understanding [sic], but I think, based on the rest of your post, that we probably are in full agreement. In other words, no, I do not see it as viable to keep changing the definitions on the fly, spontaneously for each task. It needs to be a carefully thought out "system", as you said, and you need to stick with it until you change it, and when you do change it you have to review your tasks and make sure they are all classified correctly according to the new system. For example, if you used to had a context called Errands, but found that this was not detailed enough, so you need to split it into North and South, then this will affect all tasks previously classified as Errands.fwade;111118 said:I think what you're saying is that one might be more fluid than that, and change the kind of tagging that's done on the fly...?
That's possible - I think. It would take some really good software, however!
But what I did mean, in my previous post, is that this redefinition and subsequent review of task classifications need neither be dramatic nor difficult to recognize the need for. For example, if you discover one day that you are extremely sensitive to sound, and your environment is often noisy, then it will probably occur to you quite spontaneously that you might want to consider implementing a Silence tag, and then if after some careful deliberation you do in fact decide to go ahead with that new tag, then the work of defining the tag(s) in the software and adding them to your tasks is not really all that overwhelming.
I adjust my task classification system (tags, contexts, use of energy and time fields or whatever my current app may have available) several times a year. I hate unnecessary classification (takes work and space). Conversely, I hate not being able to see (filter/sort etc) for what I need to see. So I modify my system whenever I see a way to get the accuracy I want with as little work as possible.
I totally agree that most software do not support classification and filtering (and relevant defaults for all this) nearly as much as they could (or, IMO, should). For example, a NOT filter (Hide filter) is extremely useful and simple (for ruling out the impossible tasks without necessarily having to randomly select just one single context of those that are equally possible). Another example is implicit tags (or hierarchical tags) which would allow you, for example, to automatically associate several people tags with a common company or department tag etc, and thereby with one single tagging operation allow you the choice of filtering either for specific persons or for all people in that company. Tagging/filtering is something that could be taken to a much higher level of convenience and accuracy for the user without much difficulty for the developer.