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

[PeterW]

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

Correct, there is no Windows app but there is a web-based interface which I used every day in my previous job where the IT platform was Windows. This will require a subscription to Appigo's Todo Cloud but it doesn't cost much. To create an online account go to www.todo-cloud.com.

While it's not immediately obvious, Todo actually allows four layers. At the top is lists, within a list you can add tasks, projects or checklists. Projects can hold tasks and checklists.

Todo doesn't automate next actions like some apps attempt to do, but that's not a bad thing in my view. I subscribe to the GTD method of just entering the next action for a project, not populating it with everything I can think of. That avoids the project feeling overwhelming for me, and in any case entering future tasks can be pointless - they might not actually end up being the next action depending on what happens with the current action and everything else that might be going on in your life.

My view is that automation in a GTD system would encourage bad habits, e.g. becoming disconnected from your system, expecting it to know what should be done next, etc. A weekly review should be the time you deal with what's next after using your own computer (brain) to work out the next step.

 

[Ship69]

A weekly review should be the time you deal with what's next after using your own computer (brain) to work out the next step.

I'm not with this. Does this mean you only do a maximum of one action on each project per week? (!)

 

[PeterW]

I'm not with this. Does this mean you only do a maximum of one action on each project per week? (!)

Not necessarily, I probably wasn't clear. When completing the next action on a project you may well add the following action right away if it's clear and actionable (e.g. you're not waiting on a response). It depends on the project/situation. But the weekly review is where you ensure that you are moving projects along (reviewing, adding a next action if there isn't one, etc).

What I am driving at here is that you need to do the thinking about the next action.

 

[Ship69]

What I am driving at here is that you need to do the thinking about the next action.

Fair enough. However the question for me is exactly when/how often should one's own brain (rather than the machine) do the choosing and refining which is the Next Action?

I am still new to all this, but I do find it quite helpful to line up a few suggested Next Actions for the future and also to have a way of filtering them out, away from view. This helps avoid distraction & overwhelm. And helps you keep several projects moving in parallel.

To get clear - once I have completed the current Next Action, I find it helpful
A) For another task/Action of some sort to pop up in its place.
B) It is also convenient to have stored the list of possibly next actions that my mind came up with previously in order to chose which would be the current Next Action.
C) For the Next Action to be the first one in the queued list of possible Next Actions.

To explain the last point: The thing is that if you line up at least say 2 or maybe a few possible Next Actions for the future AND if you put them into the queue in rough priority order, then as soon as you tick off the current Next Action, the next action that the machine suggests for your actual Next Action is likely to be a fairly sensible suggestion.

On reflection I guess it would be helpful to have some visual way of flagging up that my brain has consciously approved the current Next Action as being the actual next action, following the fact that its predecessor in the list had been ticked as being completed. (??)

The problem with the likes of EverNote (as I understand it) is that it more or less HAS to show you ALL the possible Next Actions that you have got planned for a project all at once (i.e. on the same screen). I guess one way around this problem would of course to have a Tag called Next Action, but this would be a pain to keep allocating manually.

So on balance, particularly if you have roughly sorted the possible Next Actions into rough order of priority, the whole concept of having a queue of future Next Actions popping up automatically when you tick off the current Next Action seems to me to be a great idea. (And, fwiw, I am guessing was one of the core reasons why GTDNext was created!)

 

[Bill Myers]

Fair enough. However the question for me is exactly when/how often should one's own brain (rather than the machine) do the choosing and refining which is the Next Action?

The answer is it always has been and always will be necessary for you to use your brain to do the deciding. The only difference between GTD and what most people do is that with GTD you do the deciding up front, consistently, and keep the results of that thinking in a trusted system rather than doing the thinking only after something blows up on you and you're in fire-fighting mode. No one does their best thinking in fire-fighting mode.

I am going to be the broken record and tell you from personal experience that you are fooling yourself if you think that spending such lavish amounts of time pondering list managers is going to get you where you need to go. For whatever reason you're avoiding work with a full-on productivity porn habit. I've been there and while there are worse addictions -- like illegal drugs -- this one is nevertheless destructive because it cheats you of achieving anything close to your full potential.

DA advises in GTD that your systems should be so easy to use that you can update them when you have the flu. That's as good as your system gets. Fancy software that links this to that and automates this-and-that doesn't qualify.

If you follow the GTD steps consistently you won't need or want some overly elaborate system.

I think you know what you need to do. I would suggest you should have more faith in yourself and your own mind than in yet another attempt by someone to automate (read: unnecessarily complicate) GTD with their software.

 

[PeterW]

The answer is it always has been and always will be necessary for you to use your brain to do the deciding. The only difference between GTD and what most people do is that with GTD you do the deciding up front, consistently, and keep the results of that thinking in a trusted system rather than doing the thinking only after something blows up on you and you're in fire-fighting mode. No one does their best thinking in fire-fighting mode.

I am going to be the broken record and tell you from personal experience that you are fooling yourself if you think that spending such lavish amounts of time pondering list managers is going to get you where you need to go. For whatever reason you're avoiding work with a full-on productivity porn habit. I've been there and while there are worse addictions -- like illegal drugs -- this one is nevertheless destructive because it cheats you of achieving anything close to your full potential.

DA advises in GTD that your systems should be so easy to use that you can update them when you have the flu. That's as good as your system gets. Fancy software that links this to that and automates this-and-that doesn't qualify.

If you follow the GTD steps consistently you won't need or want some overly elaborate system.

I think you know what you need to do. I would suggest you should have more faith in yourself and your own mind than in yet another attempt by someone to automate (read: unnecessarily complicate) GTD with their software.

Excellent post, bcmyers2112. I sometimes think that the desire to automate GTD is actually a desire to disconnect, to avoid, to not think.

 

[Ship69]

> If you follow the GTD steps consistently you won't need or want some overly elaborate system.
Are you against having a system that given you just one next action?

Re the "productivity porn" bit I only half plead guilty to that... I would strongly argue that the vast majority of systems that I have looked at are basically unusable in as much as they are all just WAY too painful to enter & manage the data, and on that basis one would be very much better off using paper. And it has only been list for at least bit of "porn" to help me get through that has kept me off purely using paper.

The system I am using (MLO) is one of the most complex systems I've ever had to learn. And I now find myself lusting after the symplicity of something as basic as "Clear" (except I have Windows/Anroid not iThing). In someways MLO is both intuitive and brilliantly easy. However partly due to the lack of explainer videos, learning my way around it AND getting into the habits of GTD has been pretty tough going.

But I am hoping that over time, getting up to speed with a system that has all manner of nice-to-haves and user-configurability will pay dividends. But I'll get back to you on that later as to whether it was worth the learning curve.

 

[Bill Myers]

Are you against having a system that given you just one next action?

I'm not really "against" anything. It's your prerogative to do whatever you want. You asked for advice, though, so along with others here I'm giving some.

Re the "productivity porn" bit I only half plead guilty to that... I would strongly argue that the vast majority of systems that I have looked at are basically unusable in as much as they are all just WAY too painful to enter & manage the data, and on that basis one would be very much better off using paper. And it has only been list for at least bit of "porn" to help me get through that has kept me off purely using paper.

I think that's because anything that even comes close to the amount of automation you want is going to come with usability issues. That's why I suggest using something simpler, whether it's an easy-to-use task manager (I would heartily recommend Wunderlist in that regard but it's far from the only usable option) or paper.

The system I am using (MLO) is one of the most complex systems I've ever had to learn. And I now find myself lusting after the symplicity of something as basic as "Clear" (except I have Windows/Anroid not iThing).

Why aren't you giving yourself the simplicity you say you crave, then? You seem like a very intelligent person, and again I think you should have more faith in yourself to do the thinking needed to transform your amorphous stuff into lists of next actions, projects, somedays, ticklers, reference, etc.

Anyway I've more than said my piece here. I ultimately wish you the best of luck whatever you decide to do.

 

[Bill Myers]

I sometimes think that the desire to automate GTD is actually a desire to disconnect, to avoid, to not think.

I agree, and ironically that impulse is contrary to the core of GTD.

 

[Folke]

I sometimes think that the desire to automate GTD is actually a desire to disconnect, to avoid, to not think.

I agree, and ironically that impulse is contrary to the core of GTD.

I agree that GTD (and life as a whole) requires us to think. And I agree that some people in some cases may seem to want to avoid thinking. But that's not the only pupose, not even the main purpose, of using lists and calendars and colorful flags and automation and other devices. The main purpose of these tools, I believe, for most people, is to remember their previous decisions and be able to focus their thinking on what is most relevant right now.

We all have different tastes when it comes to computer apps (or paper tools). What ship69 is referring to, I believe, is that if you use an app that can also handle actions that are so-called "project support" (i.e. dependent actions, not yet possible) that the first of these is automatically promoted to an active next action status if there are no next actions left in the project. This is quite a common feature and is liked by many (I personally find most implementations too crude, though). This automation does not in any way eliminate thinking. It does eliminate a couple of clicks, though. Without it, you need to first click into the project, then transform the first remaining action to an active (visible) next action state, and then click back to where you were. The thinking as such, i.e. to identify next actions or even a whole series of upcoming next actions, is nothing you can avoid regardless of the tools you use. If you have this automation, you can line up a few actions (as many as you want) in advance without cluttering your next actions lists and without clicking as much during the day. If you do not have automation you simply have to revisit the project every time you complete something, and that is no big problem, either. (It is what I do.) Either way, it is no big deal, and nothing that deserves any far-reaching conclusions about avoiding thought etc.

 

[Oogiem]

DA advises in GTD that your systems should be so easy to use that you can update them when you have the flu. That's as good as your system gets. Fancy software that links this to that and automates this-and-that doesn't qualify.

If you follow the GTD steps consistently you won't need or want some overly elaborate system.

I do disagree with a bit of this. For me, the system that is easy to maintain and update and work from when I am really sick is one that is actually very complex, with lots of software links to bring things to the fore as required. I've done my thinking in advance and all I have to do next is work the system and review and handle new inputs.

When we are slammed with lambs or dealing with a blizzard and hungry sheep or got really, really sick my wonderful ,complex GTD system was a lifesaver. I could look at my lists and easily pick out the absolutely critical had to finish stuff on it and know the rest was safely stored away for later. When I did the weekly review in that time I was able to clear a lot of stuff and also projects I had already planned perked along well. When I had no energy I could look at a context and pick out something simple to do that didn't tax my brain or body and move projects forward.

Complex systems are not inherantly bad, it depends on your situation and how you use them. A very extensive system can in fact be just the ticket especially during stressful times.

 

[Bill Myers]

What ship69 is referring to, I believe, is that if you use an app that can also handle actions that are so-called "project support" (i.e. dependent actions, not yet possible) that the first of these is automatically promoted to an active next action status if there are no next actions left in the project.

Yeah, I understood that.

Either way, it is no big deal, and nothing that deserves any far-reaching conclusions about avoiding thought etc.

I disagree. For example the seemingly innocuous "auto-promotion" of future tasks to next action status would be problematic for me -- and I suspect for most people -- because my projects rarely go strictly according to plan. So I'd prefer to add next actions manually as circumstances warrant. Life is fluid and forces us to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate our choices and plans.

 

[Bill Myers]

Complex systems are not inherantly bad, it depends on your situation and how you use them. A very extensive system can in fact be just the ticket especially during stressful times.

You and I disagree on this point. I've found that the more complex I made my systems the more brittle they became. Life is fluid and a simpler system makes it easier for me to stay on track.

I think where you and I might agree is that Ship69 could have been experiencing the benefits of GTD several weeks ago with simple paper lists. I think he or she would be better served to get on with his or her important work rather than spending copious amounts of time searching for the perfect software when even sheets of paper in a folder would do.

 

[Folke]

... the seemingly innocuous "auto-promotion" of future tasks to next action status would be problematic for me -- and I suspect for most people -- because my projects rarely go strictly according to plan. So I'd prefer to add next actions manually as circumstances warrant. Life is fluid and forces us to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate our choices and plans.

I actually also do it manually. But that's mainly because a) I find it manageable to do it manually, and b) because most apps have such a rigid and clunky implementation.

I agree that life and projects are fluid, and that re-evaluation is often called for, but that fact will apply regardless of whether I have automation features at hand or not. This type of automation really does not change any of that. All it does is it saves a few clicks and "guarantees" that even if you are forgetful you will have at least one next action visible from each project. The main downside (for me) is that the implementation is usually too rigid for my taste, allowing only one next action per project at a time, which is why I did not use it even when I had it (e.g. in Nirvana).

But I think I see your point that features of all kinds (or apparent lack thereof) can tempt people to get lost in figuring out features rather than do what they ought to do. I agree that plain old paper works fine, too. (I used paper myself longer than I have used computer lists.)

 

[Ship69]

I think where you and I might agree is that Ship69 could have been experiencing the benefits of GTD several weeks ago with simple paper lists. I think he or she would be better served to get on with his or her important work rather than spending copious amounts of time searching for the perfect software when even sheets of paper in a folder would do.

For the record I have also been using paper lists in parallel. But although paper list work brilliantly at first. It's quite a buzz. There's lots of things you can fast on paper with arrows and maybe the odd box and perhaps colouring up that make paper much faster to enter certain types of information. Also paper creates an output that is much more VISUAL and I think very visually.

However, over the passing of time... as priorities shift around... as certain things become completed,...as the lists become too long and I cant find things... (e.g. I cant match up the list of Next Actions to the list of Projects!)... as I eventually need to recreate my list from scratch and end up copying a number of things over every time I need to rebuild my lists... and then I cant remember where in the sequence of different types of lists the currently live version of each list lives... And when I add more and more tasks to a projected... after a while my lists get more and more messy and pretty soon I start to hate my paper lists with a passion.

Typex/snowpake is pretty helpful but I hate having to wait for it to dry. And then over time it gets thicker and thicker... it can then crack and/or become hard to paint over cleanly... and the whole things is a MESS.

But yes, I do still use paper - particularly for higher level stuff. But it's clear to me that a well-designed electronic system would be vastly superior.

 

[Bill Myers]

I think the real question here is how much structure does one need in order to cope with life? I suspect you think you need far more than you actually do. GTD is about putting just enough structure in place so you can trust your intuition -- but you seem reluctant to trust yourself. I don't think you're going to find what you need in a computer program.