As I said in the previous post, being a seasoned paper user, if it were only for the first trivial points I would probably stay with paper. The value for me with computers lies almost entirely in the cross-referencing potential - for both review purposes and task selection, and in the capability to see my stuff from a 20k-30k perspective. I certainly would not use an app just to carry a white index card.
This is very interesting and a bit funny, too, this discrepancy between what different people regard as complicated or easy. I totally agree, of course, that it is a good thing to keep classification work down to what you actually have use for. I myself use only few classifications (tags), only those that I have practical use for (the above were just illustrative examples). The funny thing is that what you describe sounds more complicated and structured to me than what I am describing - and vice versa, apparently:
Originally Posted by TesTeq
1) Is it easier to devise a good structure, mutually exclusive (can only use one classification), and always have to decide which ONE of all the lists to put a task on, and subsequently be prepared to look at several lists to find it again (if the choice of lists was not obvious)
2) Is it easier to have less structure, no compulsory context classification, but an array of independent (non-exclusive) individual characterization aspects that you can apply as relevant, and be able to either show or hide tasks have certain characteristics.
Obviously, tastes can differ a great deal.