Hi friends,

I'm playing with a shift in how to use Omnifocus and I wanted to run it by the folks here (those that are familiar with it, at least). The shift occurred to me after reading David Allen Co.'s PDF guide to OF3. In it, they suggest a few different default settings than those set by Omni, namely that "Waiting For" and "Someday/Maybe" lists are not on hold (therefore always viewable), that you create lots of lists in a folder called "Reference," that not every task needs a project, and also that you operate from the Tags view instead of the Projects view.

I followed these suggestions and immediately my OF became a mess. This was because I'd mostly used OF from the project view, keeping it as tidy as possible, putting every project that wasn't a priority on hold and being meticulous with my folder structure/project naming/task articulation. While I did have a "Reference" folder with several lists in it, those lists were of tasks. I also required every task to have a project and hardly anything at all had a tag.

Now I am looking at OF as one big list manager, and only some of the items in it are tasks. Furthermore, any item in any list can easily turn into a project with much richness and utility. One of the common critiques of OF is that it becomes overwhelming because there are so many items in it. I felt that way, too: so many items to literally get to "Done" by checking everyone of them off. But could I appreciate OF more because there are so many items in it?

As much as the name implies, GTD isn't actually about emptying a list, it's about emptying the head. There will always be more in my head than there is to "do." To have both goals of emptying head and emptying list is to fundamentally be at odds. I need a tool that can handle everything in my head — show me things I might like to do at the right time/place/energy level and also capture whatever's in my head at any time/place/energy level.

It's still TBD if OF is actually this tool, but looked at in this way, I'm using it differently. I've added many reference lists — some whimsical, some purposeful, some ambitious, most without any to do items at all. I'm using the notes feature robustly. For items across lists and and projects that need to be "done," I've added a the proper metadata -- a tag and sometimes a date to help me when I'm in the proper space to do them.

---

Perhaps this new to me understanding is common to most, but I share in case it's a shift you as well, and as always, to invite your thoughtful reflections.

Interesting thoughts, Beck. Before trying to address them as a user of OF, I probably ought to read the David Allen guide to OF3, of which I was previously ignorant. So thanks for letting me know about it.

Beck,

This sounds like the ideal of having one app to organize both tasks and notes. I like the concept very much. Making it work in the real world, given the tools we have, is the challenge.

I tried OmniFocus recently and I was not satisfied with the notes function. TickTick handles notes better, I think. It has a nice big box for writing notes, which is visible when you select a task. I didn't stick with TickTick because you can't nest projects in it, but that sounds like it may be a non-issue with this system.

I will welcome any insights you develop as you explore this paradigm. Good luck.

Steve Z

you are right. OF is a list box. The reason is clear: they are trying to follow GTD.

GTD itself is a listing system. It doesn't have a complete framework that helps you to bring your projects from inception to completion.

It just makes you list stuff.



Beck wrote:

As much as the name implies, GTD isn't actually about emptying a list,
it's about emptying the head.

That is the most ridiculous thing about GTD. I have heard the David guy (whoever he is) repeatedly claiming that keeping tasks off your brain makes your brain better. This is utterly stupid.

The scientific evidence is on the opposite. Using your brain is makes your brain better. That is why Alzheimer is less prevalent among advanced degree holder; that is why people who are involved a lot of "thinking" are more likely to have sharper brain.

After trying it for a couple of times, I just hated GTD. It is too shallow.

If you want a system, Agile is one of the best project management systems I have ever tried. It helps you from the beginning to the end.
I had been interested to use Tinderbox for Agile project management. You can search the forums (the old and the new about it).

Nowadays, I just use Tick Tick. I find it enough for running tasks. For the "reflection" part which is the main part of the Agile system, I am using the Note part of Tick Tick.

Hi Beck,

I hadn't read what the David Allen Company had to say about OmniFocus, but what you're describing seems somewhat in line with the way I've been using OmniFocus, even all the way back to version 1. For instance, for most projects (i.e. whatever outcome requires more than 1 step to accomplish), I would have (a) links e.g. to specific email threads, (b) my current analysis of the situation, and (c) a log of the actions/communication related to that project. As a result, a project would often have very few actual next actions (most often just 1), but many more other "tasks" used to keep track of (a)+(b)+(c) in an outline manner.

The upside of this approach is that you can keep reference material along your projects/next actions. If you have a large number of projects, lots of churn in your projects (say every day half a dozen of them get completed and another half a dozen are created), you're saving quite a bit of time compared to an approach where you're creating one part in OmniFocus and the other part in Bear, Evernote, WorkFlowy, or similar. You don't have to create for each project something in 2 systems. You don't have to create for each project 2-way links between the 2 systems. You don't have to maintain a similar folder hierarchy in 2 systems. When looking for something, you don't have to do so in 2 systems.

However, the downside is that OmniFocus isn't designed to be used this way. You'll have issues with performance. I've had in the order of 50,000 tasks stored in OmniFocus, and even with way less than that (around 10,000), certain operations can be completely unusable on the iOS app (like searching), or painfully slow (like navigating in the project view). The app can also change in ways that break your system. For instance, OmniFocus 2 for iPhone was showing only one level of the outline at a time. So if you had a project holding 3 level outline, each level having 10 items, you'd have 10*10*10 = 1000 items in that project (plus 110 grouping items), and could easily navigate through those 1110 items on the iPhone because you would only see 10 at a time. Switch to OmniFocus 3 on your iPhone, and all 1110 are shown in a single list which makes it practically unusable.

So I can't recommend using OmniFocus this way. Which is too bad, because it is tempting to look at OmniFocus as an outliner in which you can put any type of items (project, reference, next actions, logs…), but with the ability to attach to each item tags, files (images, audio recording), and dates (start date, due date, notifications), and the ability to create views on the content based on search/tags/dates, all this in a tool actively being developed and supported on Apple platforms.

If anyone knows of an alternative software (or approach), please let us know!

‑Alex

Beck this is certainly an interesting way to "use" OmniFocus, but when I read Allen Co.'s description of how to set up OF as a list app, it sounded a bit like taking a hammer to a Phillips-head screwdriver and banging away it until it becomes a flat-head screwdriver.

Or just buy the right tool.

I like lists -- not to get things out of my brain but because I forget things that are important but not important right now. Like talk to my estate attorney once a year. I don't need to remember that.

I hate OmniFocus because it is huge, ugly and clunky; feels like software designed by the politburo; and the Microsoft logo would look right at home on it. But, on a quarterly cycle I return to it and feed and care for it for a few weeks or a month or two, then abandon it again. Because the software alternatives are more lacking than OmniFocus is lacking.

Nothing like a good sheet of paper. I write my list for the day every morning on a little index card and that's just fine.

Thanks, Beck! I had no idea those guides existed. They IMMEDIATELY solved one of my biggest issues with OF3 (the fact that tasks "must" be in projects). The "---" hint alone was worth the price of admission. Plus I got one for Evernote and Trello too!

Alessandro Vernet wrote:

So I can't recommend using OmniFocus this way. Which is too bad, because
it is tempting to look at OmniFocus as an outliner in which you can put
any type of items (project, reference, next actions, logs…), but
with the ability to attach to each item tags, files (images, audio
recording), and dates (start date, due date, notifications), and the
ability to create views on the content based on search/tags/dates, all
this in a tool actively being developed and supported on Apple
platforms.

You have just managed to articulate more hope and disappointment than should be allowable in less than 100 words. :)

If anyone knows of an alternative software (or approach), please let us
know!

So I presume you are still using it this way even though you experience its shortcomings? Or have you migrated your notes away from your tasks in some other system?

Beck

Paul Korm wrote:

read Allen Co.'s description of how to set up OF as a list app, it
sounded a bit like taking a hammer to a Phillips-head screwdriver and
banging away it until it becomes a flat-head screwdriver.

I got a whiff of that myself, tbh.

Or just buy the right tool.

Which is??

Nothing like a good sheet of paper. I write my list for the day every
morning on a little index card and that's just fine.

How long has this been working well for you?

Beck wrote:

>Or just buy the right tool.

Which is??

I'm not sure. No software I've used seems like "it".

I write my list for the day every
>morning on a little index card and that's just fine.

How long has this been working well for you?

Many years. It is simple. Portable.

IIRC you're using a MTN, yes? Does that factor in your paper system?

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm not sure. No software I've used seems like "it".

Sigh.

Beck wrote:

So I presume you are still using it this way even though you experience
its shortcomings? Or have you migrated your notes away from your tasks
in some other system?

I'm still using OmniFocus, but have, since the beginning of last year, switched to using notes more extensively:

- In the "projects" part of the system, all the project-reference-material now takes the form of nested bullets in a note for the project. As a result, the only actions in the project really are for next actions.
- In the "reference" part of the system, I try to put as much as possible (and makes sense) in notes as well. So where before I might have had an action with say 5 nested actions, each with 5 nested actions, I would now have those 5+5*5 items as lines of text in the note of an action.

In notes, I use nested "bullet points" using a Markdown syntax. The upside is that this reduces the number of actions in the system by a factor somewhere between 10x and 100x, making some operations, like browsing and searching, possible again on the iPhone. The downside is that using Markdown as an outlining tool is at times just painful: I don't get any folding, and have to copy the text to a text editor to perform some operations, like indenting or moving blocks. And there is some irony in having to do all this gymnastic with notes in OmniFocus, which is otherwise a quite competent outliner.

So again, I'm not sure that using notes this way is something that I would recommend.
If you or anyone has any suggestion on how to improve this, I'm listening!

‑Alex

My wife and business partner - an exceedingly busy, well organised and multitasking person - writes her tasks down on paper. And gets through an awful lot.

As a software-oriented person, I now use DynaList (my Great Numbers Experiment having failed!). Which, as its name suggests, does lists supremely well.

I use tags for my GTD-based task organisation, but also store notes, references etc. in subsections of my main task list. For major projects, I use separate lists, but include references from my main list.

I don't attach files, however - at the moment, you can't attach files. A better list manager (on macOS, iOS) from that point of view would be Things 3.

I've become very attached to DynaList, and can't see myself moving any time soon!

Beck wrote

using an MTN

For my daily check list I use cheapo 3 x 2.5 Oxford Ruled index cards that I buy at the grocery store. $4 for 200 cards. Couldn’t be more retro and old school than that. I like small cards because I have to be terse and cannot pile on actions.

Though, I recently found a nifty Grids & Guides pocket notebook from Princeton Architectural Press that is calling my name.

Bill wrote

DynaList

I've experimented with DynaList recently and like much about it. Many shortcomings though: I cannot see how to split a document. When a list of checkboxes has numerous finished items cannot easily hide them. Tags autocomplete is good, but the app only remembers tags in the current document -- doesn't offer autocomplete suggestions from a universal app-wide list of tags, defeating the purpose of autocomplete. DynaList support isn't. They never respond to questions (including ignoring most of what users write in their forum).

You can have universal auto complete of tags. It is an option in the settings dialog.

Paul Korm wrote:

Tags autocomplete is good, but the app only remembers tags in the
current document -- doesn't offer autocomplete suggestions from a
universal app-wide list of tags, defeating the purpose of autocomplete.
DynaList support isn't. They never respond to questions (including
ignoring most of what users write in their forum).

You can attach files to items in your list. You drag the document into your list. Dynalist imports the document to its server, then gives you a link to the file which you paste into your document where you want it. When you click the link in your document it opens it in a new window. It is a clumsy process, but does work.

MadaboutDana wrote:

I don't attach files, however - at the moment, you can't attach files. A
better list manager (on macOS, iOS) from that point of view would be
Things 3.

I've become very attached to DynaList, and can't see myself moving any
time soon!

@stephen

Wow, I didn't know it could import documents - thanks for the tip. Thanks also for the tip about universal tagging!

@paul

I use a top-level item labelled "Archive", into which I drag and drop all completed tasks. Okay, it's slightly tedious to do that, but it also acts as a kind of overview/mopping-up operation that reminds me of stuff I might have overlooked, etc. Another option is to create an archive subitem under each major heading (I've also used that approach in other outliners). It would be good to have a "disappear" option for completed items, but hey, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

I should clarify that the universal tagging is, I think, a feature of the Pro subscription and may not be available with the free version. The same is true for the document attachment.

MadaboutDana wrote:

@stephen

Wow, I didn't know it could import documents - thanks for the tip.
Thanks also for the tip about universal tagging!

@paul

I use a top-level item labelled "Archive", into which I drag and drop
all completed tasks. Okay, it's slightly tedious to do that, but it also
acts as a kind of overview/mopping-up operation that reminds me of stuff
I might have overlooked, etc. Another option is to create an archive
subitem under each major heading (I've also used that approach in other
outliners). It would be good to have a "disappear" option for completed
items, but hey, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

Ugh. I've stared at those settings several times and never saw what I was looking at.

Sorry -- thanks Steve!

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

You can have universal auto complete of tags. It is an option in the
settings dialog.

I can't tell you how many times that kind of thing has happened to me.

A further note about tagging in Dynalist is that when you open the tags panel, you can see tags for all your outlines or just the current one. I think that is a very handy auto filtering feature.

Paul Korm wrote:

Ugh. I've stared at those settings several times and never saw what I
was looking at.

Sorry -- thanks Steve!

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
You can have universal auto complete of tags. It is an option in the
>settings dialog.

Yes, drag and drop is intended for 16 year olds with fine motor control. Otherwise, cut and paste is better.

MadaboutDana wrote:

I use a top-level item labelled "Archive", into which I drag and drop
all completed tasks. Okay, it's slightly tedious to do that,

There is, as least on the desktop. Click the eye icon above the document (right hand) and adjust "Checked Items"

It would be good to have a "disappear" option for completed
items, but hey, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

>It would be good to have a "disappear" option for completed
>items, but hey, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

The "disappear" setup I like best is to choose Available with the eye icon. Either Available or Remaining will hide completed items, but Available adds a little extra.

I have things that absolutely, positively, must get done every day, and there are a few things that have to happen every Monday, a few more imperatives for Fridays.

Those are all set to auto-repeat based on assigned date, so in case I do a Monday thing on Tuesday it still revives itself the following Monday. With Available view, the item disappears completely when checked off. In Remaining view, I'll see the next copy appear, grayed out.

Available is what I prefer. I do not merely check tasks off, I slay those lampreys of my time. They don't complete, they die without mercy's frail respect, losing all mortal significance (until I choose All, or Remaining if they repeat).

It's a small thing, but I wish items could repeat with some control over the tags that get forwarded to the next instance.

For example, I have repeating items for all my bills. They defer until a day or so before I figure I should have the invoice in hand, due ten days before what the real due-by date should be. The single-action lists for categories of bills all have a tag "Bills", so new items inherit that tag, which is also passed on when the bill item is checked off and auto-repeated to the next month.

When I receive a bill, I add the tag "Recvd" so I can view that tag and see a list of all the bills in my physical inbox.

Works great, but when I pay a bill I have to remember to jump from the tags view to the project view (click the arrow in the inspector to the right of the project field), find the bill in the list, and remove the Recvd tag before checking it off.

If I check it off first, the newly created item for that bill will have the right defer and due dates for its next iteration, but it will also have that Recvd tag. If I remove the Recvd tag from the item while viewing it via the Recvd tag view, it disappears from that tag view - makes sense, but I can't remove the tag and then check it off, from the tags view.

A workaround is to use the Remaining view when I look at the Recvd bills. Unfortunately, when I check off an item I see the next iteration of the bill revive in gray, clawing its way out of its predecessor's grave, glaring at me with heartless, undead eyes until I remove its Recvd tag. Then, as expected, it drops out of the Recvd view.

Devonthink handles that a little better. If I'm in a rich text note, for example, viewing by way of one of its tags, I can remove or add tags without jumping away from the document, even if I remove the tag that brought it into view. Only when I change away from the document is the tagging really updated. You don't end up sawing off the tag you're standing on, which is sort of what can happen in OmniFocus.

Hm, yes, ditto to Paul's remark: it's amazing what you don't see. I've never actually clicked on the "eye" icon (me, an inveterate "click it till it hurts" user!)

What a lot of useful options!

I'm getting converted again back to Dynalist thanks to Bill & Steve solving my two issues.

The Google calendar integration in Pro is very good -- too bad though it is one-way (Dynalist --> calendar). I tag the heck out of lists in Dynalist with @person and #object tags, because documents are very simple to filter. And bookmarking filters on the fly is very useful. Plus the [[wikilike]] cross-linking of notes.

@Beck -- sorry to hijack your thread and morph it to a different topic, but you might want to checkout Dynalist as an alternative to using OF for lists?

Dynalist is a good complement to my handwritten list-o'-the-day habit.

MadaboutDana wrote:

What a lot of useful options!

Paul Korm wrote:

Plus the [[wikilike]] cross-linking of notes.

This would be a killer feature for me. Could someone though enlighten me where this company is based? There seems to be zero info about their geographical location on their website.