Contexts and metadata on tasks - is it a waste of time?

Many productivity methods mention tagging tasks with metadata. I’ve been thinking about this and wondered if I have gone overboard in this regard. Having been a fan of productivity systems for many years I’ve seen systems come and go and most include this in some way. There was the Franklin letter/number system. GTD has contexts. I’ve seen recent articles advocating more expansion of tags to include energy, passion and others.

Is metadata tagging worth the time to do it? One thing I can’t stand about Omnifocus and Things is the number of taps it takes to enter metadata on iOS. I have tried to minimize this time investment by using Taskpaper with Textexpander. I have snippets that expand to sets of context tags. For example typing “t1m” expand to “@AAA @1 @m” which is a priority one task to be done today on the mac. Very fast tags.

I find, however, in practical experience, that I don’t end up leveraging these tags on the back end like I could. Perhaps that makes it not worth my time to do it in the first place. I most frequently use my mac-related tag “@m” when I am seated at the computer. I rarely filter by priority. Why? I already know what is important with or without a quick glance at the list. I also like my “@AAA” tag which is my designataion for today’s list. That allows me to see my actionable stuff for today and prevents me from feeling overwhelmed by the size of the global list.

Mark Forster’s Autofocus system advocates scanning pages of tasks to see what stands out. I have always found this to be interesting. I think I agree with what I believe to be an underlying assumtion of this method: our brains know what needs to be done and are able to consider, in real-time, any number of related elements such as our energy level, our passions, our priorities, our deadlines.

Maybe simple list apps like Clear have a good thing going in being too simple to allow tagging.

My wife writes task lists on paper, or her hand on days she needs to and just works from an inner list on the other days. She has no formal productivity system. She is as productive as anyone I know.

Perhaps I will back off of all this tagging and trust my brain more.

Does iOS/iPhone todo app design really matter in productivity?

Does iPhone App visual design matter in productivity?

I’ve been thinking about Clear and how much appearance and design might affect productivity. Is Clear more than just an app that is cool to look at and play with? How many of us will be using it in 3 months? Here are some factors related to design that might be considered.

Tap Count

Some apps suffer from a high tap-count. I have previously logged the number of taps it takes to create a todo, for instance, and used it to compare several apps. Things, Reminders, Omnifocus and others can have a high tap-count if one is entering in more than just the task name. Clear forces a low tap-count by not allowing additional data entry and by truncating the task name field size. Taskpaper has a lower tap-count also because all addition task data is placed on the same line as the task name.

One hand or two?

Apps that allow one-handed navigation are more situation-adaptible and therefore faster. Sometimes one mostly is full or used for a task. Perhaps once must enter a quick todo when (gasp) driving. Clear is interesting in that some of its fuctions must be done with two hands. Other apps such as Things, Reminders, Omnifocus, and Taskpaper can be used mostly one-handed. Siri, of course, is another wrinkle on this.

Data compartmentalization

I really look dimly on designs that have extensive areas that must be tapped into and out of. Enter the task name on one page, exit and go to a page to enter the due date, exit and enter a page to enter the context, etc, is a painful process. Clear has only three levels and only one level for the task data. A Taskpaper todo file has one level, period. Things, Reminders and Omnifocus have data stuffed in all kinds of various and sundry places.

A pleasure to use

Some have commented that Clear is fun to use and therefore they will be more productive. I think there might be some truth to this but have not looked at it objectively. For me, Clear is fun to use until I need to search, tag, sync, etc.

Screen content balance

I like Taskpaper’s ability to change font size. I use a 13pt Helvetica font which allows a nice high-level view of &;12-15 tasks. Clear gives me the feeling of too little presented at once. It maxes out at 8 tasks at a time. Things used to annoy me because I felt like I saw too few tasks at once. On the other hand, sometimes Taskpaper can be intimidating because I can see the entire list easily and it seems overwhelming.

Task name truncation

Things truncates the task name in the master list. Taskpaper does word wrapping. Clear doesn’t truncate, it just limits the task field to one line.

Is it cool?

I like to use apps I think are cool. Clear is cool. I think the same of Taskpaper - especially with a black background and white lettering.

Conclusion

In thinking about this, I think there will be users that will get more done with Clear because it is gesture-based, innovative and cool. However, for many of us that want tags, search, contexts, sync across devices, scripting on the Mac, etc, Clear falls short and is just a nice looking veneer over a simple list. I do admire the design of Clear and commend the Devs/Designers on a fine app.

Clear iPhone app, Taskpaper and the rest - a roundup

Clear dropped yesterday and Twitter is abuzz with comments and reviews. Here is my take:

Clear - design and simplicity are the keywords here. Functionally, this is a simple list app. No sync, no tags. It is as if everyone thinks the design is slick grease that will push you on to increased productivity. I bought it and liked the UI a lot (props to the Devs)  but immediately missed the simple (one-document) broad view afforded by Taskpaper as well as higher-level functions like tags, scripts and syncing.

Taskpaper - my recent go-to app. Dropbox sync, tags, flexibility make this system a winner. No repeats (which I address with weekly todos that expand with TextExpander). I do very fast tagging with TextExpander snippits. Has a fast-scroll feature which allows a fast over-fly of all tasks. I keep the Inbox at the bottom so that hitting the (+) button instantly puts the cursor there and ready to go. It doesn’t take too long to activate Siri after that. I add tasks on the Mac with Quicksilver, my friend all these years. Low tap requirement to work the app. Can add tasks from mail. Scriptable.

Omnifocus - is the famous heavy-lifter in this category. It is popular and powerful. A major con for me is slowness, enough of a downer on the iPhone that I dropped it. Also, using it feels like drinking the KoolAid or watching Titanic or Avatar - everyone is doing it.

Listary - a super-simple list app with fast collaboration via Simplenote. I’m ramping this up for sharing tasks with my wife.  I might go to this fully in the future for personal tasks due to the Simplenote / nvALT backend.

Wunderlist - allows free syncing of tasks across several platforms but lacks repeats. I don’t quite like the UI.

Asana - I mention this because I looked at it this month for sharing tasks. Looks like it has potential but falls short on speed like Omnifocus.

Things - the original Player when it comes to iPhone todo apps. GTD philosphy, pretty good design. It has suffered for, what, 2 years (?) under the cloud of promised (but not shipped) cloud sync. It is apparantly in beta since August (!!!!). Too many taps to enter data.

Reminders (iOS) - has Siri integration but suffers from Tap-itis to do anything else. Tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap and it seems to never stop. I’m hoping subsequent updates improve this. It does sync via iCloud.

There are others that I am not so familiar with other than reading stuff here and there, including some that have cloud sync, tagging, and others that are minimalist.

I think I will continue to use TaskPaper for reasons noted above. I need more than a sweet exterior paint job - I also need some umph under the hood.