What if @Computer wasn't a context?

cfoley

Registered
A while ago, I realised that my @Computer list contained about half of my Next Actions. I prefer working from short lists so this resulted in me resisting this context.

I decided to deliberately choose other contexts wherever possible, making @Computer the last resort. For example, instead of "Google this" or "Google that" as a lazy default when I didn't know what to do, I would try "Natural planning for this" or "Call Bob about that" or maybe even "Just try to do the thing and see if I can work it out as I go".

This really helped. I broke a lazy habit, wrote better next actions, and got some projects unstuck. When I did need to google, I could be really specific about what to search for. Unexpectedly, I also got more sensitive to feeling resistance in any context and was quick to replace a next action with something more attractive to me.

But my @Computer context was still too big, and the edges blurred with my @Desk context and let's be honest I sometimes look at my computer no matter what I am doing. Even if I am cleaning, I might need to refer to a checklist. The machine is so ubiquitous and so intertwined with my life that maybe the context doesn't really make sense for me any more. After all, I don't use @Pen-and-paper-available or @Not-naked.

What might better contexts look like for me? To answer this, I started grouping similar next actions from my @Computer and @Desk contexts:
  • Shopping (14)
  • Writing (11)
  • Google (10) - still ten after all that!
  • Read (5)
  • Watch (5)
  • Planning (5)
  • Others (22) - back to @Desk for these for now
Are these better contexts? I don't know. However, I can see myself choosing from @Watch late in the evening where I wasn't in the habit of choosing from @Computer. Similarly, I might snack from @Google when I need a break from more intensive work or @Read in my coffee break.

I don't have a specific question. It's just food for thought, really. With all the recent talk about abandoning contexts, it was surprising that my troubleshooting led me to consider more contexts. I would love to hear your thoughts and experiences about similar things.
 

ivanjay205

Registered
I have an @computer and a subtag (as OmniFocus allows that) for @iPhone. This way I can have a perspective viewing all of them and a separate one for just mobile.

I created different "priority" perspectives to grab the important areas of focus for me first and work through each level before going to hte lower level things.

I find this helps A LOT in breaking things up although I do find that the lower priority sits. But I know that is a result of over committment for sure.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
One of the basic principles with lists for me is that I want them to be long enough on average to give you choices, but not so long that I can’t choose effectively. However, most of my work these days can be done “anywhere” by which I mean anywhere I have a Mac or an iPad (or an iPhone in a pinch). That condition is true almost all the time. A lot of the time I’m working at home too. So secondary distinctions like time, energy and priority become important, along with work versus personal. The first three are the usual GTD criteria for choosing what to do in the moment, and work vs. personal is a GTD-optional distinction. About 95% of my next actions are like this. So I broke my lists up as @Work: Big/Critical; @Personal: Big/Critical; @Work: On Deck; and @Personal: On Deck. Big/Critical is some combination of time, energy and priority, while On Deck just means ready to go. The idea is to not have to think too hard in assigning a next action to a list. I try to work on things from all four lists every day. I have a fifth list for @errands, @out, @agenda and the crucial @wife. I could break this up, but honestly it’s not that long, and anything on it requires a deviation from my norm. To my surprise, this works pretty well for me, better than anything else I have ever tried. I have some tricks which work well with Things 3, but that’s the basic idea. It may not be right for anyone else, but I think going beyond context as a primary criteria makes sense when @almost-anywhere is true for so many next actions. I have tried the @app1, @app2… approach several times, and it has been a big failure for because it did not capture the time, energy and priority aspects. On the other hand, going more granular in time, energy and priority seems too fine-grained for me to do it easily and consistently.
 

dtj

Registered
Given that I am a computer geek and that most all my actions are like to have atleast some computer component, it is fairly meaningless to me. Additionally, the @computer context originated in a time when being on or around a computer was special, whereas now I have a computer with 15 ft roughly 24x7, even when i'm in the shower. My apple watch has more computing power/memory/storage than like my first 5 computers combined. For me, @computer has about as much relevance as an @breathing context.

Consequentially I have @research and @creative contexts that make things a little more abstract and ultimately alot more useful.
 

James M

Registered
I remember hearing podcast at one point where (I think) John Forrester talked about feeling free to change your contexts as needed, as your life or perspective changes.

There's also a balancing point between having too few contexts (insufficient filtering) and too many contexts (not really any choices left).

I have settled on device-specific tags - @MAC, @phone, @laptop - as then it's tool-focused and what I have with me. Not convinced these are the best forever!
 

cfoley

Registered
I have an @computer and a subtag (as OmniFocus allows that) for @iPhone. This way I can have a perspective viewing all of them and a separate one for just mobile.

I created different "priority" perspectives to grab the important areas of focus for me first and work through each level before going to hte lower level things.

I find this helps A LOT in breaking things up although I do find that the lower priority sits. But I know that is a result of over committment for sure.

Hmm that's interesting. I haven't heard of subtags before. It sounds like your setup works for you. I was never really able to get a context for my phone that works well and has a clear boundary between it and other contexts. It sounds like the subtag works for you by intentionally blurring the line between @Computer and @iPhone. Cool! I paper lists, so I think subtags would be difficult for me to implement.

I have experienced the same as you any time I have tried to assign priorities. The lower priority items never get done. These days, I just move them to Someday/Maybe. I also find that priorities change so formalising them means more work in keeping my system up to date.
 

cfoley

Registered
I got rid of @Computer and instead replaced with @Word; @Excel; @PBI; @Outlook; @PC-Other as well as several other specific applications.

I have heard people do that before and I think I might have even tried it before.

I wasn't really trying to subdivide the @Computer context. I was trying to eliminate it and see what contexts emerged. I suppose the effect is similar, really. Where you have @Word, I have @Writing.
 

cfoley

Registered
One of the basic principles with lists for me is that I want them to be long enough on average to give you choices, but not so long that I can’t choose effectively. However, most of my work these days can be done “anywhere” by which I mean anywhere I have a Mac or an iPad (or an iPhone in a pinch). That condition is true almost all the time. A lot of the time I’m working at home too. So secondary distinctions like time, energy and priority become important, along with work versus personal. The first three are the usual GTD criteria for choosing what to do in the moment, and work vs. personal is a GTD-optional distinction. About 95% of my next actions are like this. So I broke my lists up as @Work: Big/Critical; @Personal: Big/Critical; @Work: On Deck; and @Personal: On Deck. Big/Critical is some combination of time, energy and priority, while On Deck just means ready to go. The idea is to not have to think too hard in assigning a next action to a list. I try to work on things from all four lists every day. I have a fifth list for @errands, @out, @agenda and the crucial @wife. I could break this up, but honestly it’s not that long, and anything on it requires a deviation from my norm. To my surprise, this works pretty well for me, better than anything else I have ever tried. I have some tricks which work well with Things 3, but that’s the basic idea. It may not be right for anyone else, but I think going beyond context as a primary criteria makes sense when @almost-anywhere is true for so many next actions. I have tried the @app1, @app2… approach several times, and it has been a big failure for because it did not capture the time, energy and priority aspects. On the other hand, going more granular in time, energy and priority seems too fine-grained for me to do it easily and consistently.

I find this really interesting. What is your preferred list length? Mine is 10-20. I think my @Computer list was about 70 before this exercise, which is too long for me.

I have experimented with these contexts in the past:

@Peak - high energy or detailed tasks to be done in the morning.
@Trough - Mechanical or less important tasks to be done in the afternoon slump.
@Recovery - Creative tasks to be done in the evening.

It worked really well for the @Trough context, but I found myself always choosing programming work from the @Peak context meaning that the other stuff didn't get done, and in the evenings I found that my routines meant that I didn't ever even look at my @Recovery list.
 

cfoley

Registered
Given that I am a computer geek and that most all my actions are like to have atleast some computer component, it is fairly meaningless to me. Additionally, the @computer context originated in a time when being on or around a computer was special, whereas now I have a computer with 15 ft roughly 24x7, even when i'm in the shower. My apple watch has more computing power/memory/storage than like my first 5 computers combined. For me, @computer has about as much relevance as an @breathing context.

Consequentially I have @research and @creative contexts that make things a little more abstract and ultimately alot more useful.

Yes, I remember time on the family computer being a valuable resource in the evenings. That was before using GTD but it made me plan what I was going to do with my hour slot!

I like your contexts. They are a bit more abstract than mine, which I like the sound of. I'll probably stick with what I have but bear yours in mind for a possible future iteration.
 

cfoley

Registered
I remember hearing podcast at one point where (I think) John Forrester talked about feeling free to change your contexts as needed, as your life or perspective changes.

There's also a balancing point between having too few contexts (insufficient filtering) and too many contexts (not really any choices left).

I have settled on device-specific tags - @MAC, @phone, @laptop - as then it's tool-focused and what I have with me. Not convinced these are the best forever!

I think changing contexts is one of the things I tinker with the most! I feel that I may have gone too far in the direction of too many contexts with this. Time will tell!
 

boomer70

Registered
I change up my contexts every so often when I feel they are not working for me. I have Outlooks Tasks setup using Categories for Contexts and rhis is my current list although will probably do so changes at year end. @Team Meeting/Call Topics and @Training/Education are likley to get cut as most of that stuff is in OneNote anyhow. The @ON-SITE replaced individual contexts for all of my company offices/facilities and anything I need to do when I am there I just put under that context with the name of the office/facility starting the action.

Contexts1.jpg
Contexts3.jpg
 

mcogilvie

Registered
I find this really interesting. What is your preferred list length? Mine is 10-20. I think my @Computer list was about 70 before this exercise, which is too long for me.

I have experimented with these contexts in the past:

@Peak - high energy or detailed tasks to be done in the morning.
@Trough - Mechanical or less important tasks to be done in the afternoon slump.
@Recovery - Creative tasks to be done in the evening.

It worked really well for the @Trough context, but I found myself always choosing programming work from the @Peak context meaning that the other stuff didn't get done, and in the evenings I found that my routines meant that I didn't ever even look at my @Recovery list.
Things, like Omnifocus, has flags, start dates and due dates. All available next actions show up in an “Anytime” vie, and those with flags and dates of today show up in a “Today” view. I usually have around 10 on the “Work: Big/Critical” list, and around 5 show up on the Today list at any given time. The “Personal: Big/Critical” is shorter, and the Work and Personal “On Deck” lists can be twenty actions each or more. I try to make sure that all four of these lists are represented in the “Today” view each morning, but tend to limit each list to around 10 or less in the “Today” view. So a lot of the time I’m working from “Today” as a daily list, but I’m not committed to that as a process. Things is a very capable tool, and I can respond to changing conditions very quickly as part of defining what my work is. Sometimes I’ll work on an important project, moving between apps and even devices; other times I’ll “take a break” to knock off some easy tasks to maintain a good speed through all the lists. Having set up a framework, I try to let intuition have the final word.
 

Oogiem

Registered
@Computer context was still too big, and the edges blurred with my @Desk context
Mine was huge and @desk was never a context of mine sicne I'm either at my desk or outside.
@Computer and instead replaced with @Word; @Excel; @PBI; @Outlook; @PC-Other as well as several other specific applications.
This is also my tactic. I have 16 different contexts that are all done at a computer. Mostly by application but a few by device where that is the only or the best device to use for the task.

Plus there were some things that required more than one tool and not worth two separate actions.
But even so there is one primary tool. For example, if my next action is to work on the database conversion into AnimalTrakker the primary tool I am using is LibreOffice because I create spreadsheets that are input files for the SQLite database. But when I do that I also have Obsidian up because I ave a folder there that has all the queries I run to do that. I also have Firefox with an ancient SQLite plug-in that is quickand easy to take a quick look at the DB and verify things and I have SQLite Manger up as that is how I do the actual imports. But in my context list it's LibreOffice because that is the base from which I start.

Similarly I may have as a next action Create downloadbale apk file with a context of Android Studio. But I know I'll be using my web browser to put itup into the place for epople to download it and also Obsidian to update the release notice and GitKraken to update the GitLab repository.
 

gtdstudente

Registered
xALL (Out of Home, Errands, etc.), xO (Computer, online, etc.), xP (Calls) . . . "x = external" thereby remaining cognizant when actually being public
 
Top