Personalities always differ
Sure, some people like the feel of a nice pen, some people like the feel of a touch screen, and so on and so on. I think there is no way to analyze our way past such differences. We will always be different, and we have to respect that.
What we might be able to do together, though, regardless of our individual preferences, is nail down objectively what the essential differences are, and what the essentials are that we (paper or computer) must always uphold in order not to break the core philosophy of GTD. I will not even begin to analyze all that in this post, because it would take me all day, but I would like to offer the following perspective of what GTD is:
1) a core philosophy,
based on the principle of making the best use of each moment, and therefore leaving things as open as possible until the last moment, except to the extent that something is truly nailed down time, place, sequence or other aspects etc that makes it objectively correct to prearrange the things accordingly. Based on review rather than fixed predetermination. Fundamentally distinguishes between actionable items and a variety of (yet) non-actionable items.
2) a sample guideline for paper based implementation,
based on the above core philosophy, while adapting it to the benefits and limitations of using paper.
3) potentially possible computerized implementations,
based primarily on the above core philosophy, but also, where relevant as a guideline, on the sample paper implementation.
One of the major inherent differences between paper and (potential) computer implementations is the capability to manage multiple types of uncorrelated task characterizations. On paper (unless you are prepared to maintain multiple copies of the same task; against the recommendation) you cannot possibly split up (prearrange) your tasks in more than one way, the recommended way being having a set of mutually exclusive context designations (lists). In a computer, at least potentially, in principle, you could characterize a task in as many ways you like - location contexts, tool contexts, people contexts, energy type, duration, priority (in some relevant sense) - and always be able to view only those particular tasks that are relevant to consider in your current situation, and eliminate (temporarily hide from view) all tasks that are not worth considering right now.
This means, as far as situation based task selection is concerned, that a computer implementation would have the potential to approximate the core philosophy much more closely than the paper based standard implementation.
Last edited by Folke; 10-15-2013 at 09:25 AM.