08-05-2005, 02:17 PM
I once read that someone used a main list with the outcome of each action at the end of the action.
Ex: call tire store / for Replacing tires.
I have switched back to a paper based system for my N/A's ecept for errands which I keep in my Treo 650. Now I have a big bulky planner once again with 9 Context dividers with lists. I was thinking about switching to one list using the example above. Any thoughts on this?
08-05-2005, 03:02 PM
I started doing something like this recently and I really like it so far.
I initially started combining some context specific NA lists because I wanted to save the memo categories on my palm for other things. But I don't have that many NAs overall and found I liked having just one NA list a lot better. I do keep a separate project list though, because sometimes I have more than one NA for a project. But for simple projects I often do like you describe: "buy allen wrench>>replace bike seat," with no need to put it on the project list as well.
I don't think I would like it as well with paper though. Since my list automatically sorts alphabetically, it's easy to lump similar contexts together. For example, things starting with the same verb appear together, "email," "read," and "write." It's easy to tweak this further. Any online tasks I preface with "i-"; waiting fors with "zwf" so they all appear at the bottom of the list, etc.
How are you keeping your paper lists? Something like a "hipster PDA" on index cards would be easy to sort, but I think a list on one piece of paper would quickly get too chaotic for me (not to mention illegible).
08-06-2005, 10:41 AM
I'm not sure if this gets to your points, but I've also gone back and forth on how many context-based lists to have.
My situation is that >95% of my worktime is spent at my desk, with access to my files, my computer, my phone and any co-worker who might be on my agenda list.
So nearly all of the time I have at least 4 context-based lists in play, and it's inefficient to have to switch between them to see the totality of my work and weigh things against each other.
Bottom line is that you need as many lists as you need to get things done, and no more.
08-07-2005, 03:56 AM
As far as an electronic implementation goes, this discussion brings up one of the best features of Life Balance software, in terms of how the context lists can be set up, and how one can be included by another.
I have all the typical contexts set up, such as:
but I also have some sub-set contexts set up, such as:
as there are specific tasks that can only be done on 1 of these computers, and, for example, depending on where I am with the laptop, it may or may not have internet connectivity.
In Life Balance, I have computer•Home and computer•work set up to include @internet, which means that when I am at my home computer, I also want it to list all the actions I have on my @internet list, because it is always online.
I apply this same type of sub-division of context to all other areas of my life, so that I can "zoom in" or "zoom out" within the context I am in, depending on how specific of a list I want to pick from at that moment.
I can have another place called @home, which could include @phone, @computer, @internet, @chores, @reading, etc., which would give me the master list of everything I could possibly do at home, without having to separately review each of those lists.
Same for @work -which has @computer, @internet, @phone, etc. But sometimes, I feel like spedning time on the phone, so I can look just at the @phone list, and not see everything else that I have to do at work.