List length & glaze

[Bill Nalen]

Okay, I've figured out that I really should be breaking my NA list into
more specific context lists to help manage the amount of time I'm
scanning the NA list. I'm working on coming up with contexts for me,
but I'm wondering how big most lists are. It seems to me that if the
list is pretty big (I dunno, maybe > 25 items) it might induce me to
not want to look at it. So how big are most NA type lists?

For a beginner, what would a recommended list size target be to start
with before refining for myself. For instance, if I put a @home context
list together I might have 30 NAs. So perhaps breaking that into
@inside home (maybe for when the weather is bad) I'd have 15 and
@outside home (for when the weather is good) I'd have 15 and each would
be more manageable. I realize this is highly subjective and subject to
trial and error, but I'm wondering if there might be a reasonable
guideline. (I'm using regular text files, so I'm not limited by an
artificial number of categories like I would be with the Palm
categories)

Thanks

--
Bill Nalen
RedBog Software

http://www.gardenboss.com : Visual garden planner for Windows
http://www.redbog.com : WKrellM system monitor

[Jeff Porten]

On Mar 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Bill Nalen wrote:

> It seems to me that if the list is pretty big (I dunno, maybe > 25
> items) it might induce me to not want to look at it. So how big are
> most NA type lists? For a beginner, what would a recommended list
> size target be to start with before refining for myself.

As long as it needs to be. The solution to list-length paralysis
(which I occasionally suffer from myself) is to do the FIRST item,
whatever it is, and ignore the rest of the list.

> For instance, if I put a @home context list together I might have 30
> NAs. So perhaps breaking that into @inside home (maybe for when the
> weather is bad) I'd have 15 and @outside home (for when the weather is
> good) I'd have 15 and each would be more manageable.

This activity is either one of two things:

1) a highly useful process of making sure that all of your tasks are in
their proper context

2) an endless process of navel-gazing designed because most of us find
it far more enjoyable to *organize* our to-do lists than to actually
*do* things on them.

I suspect you'll already know in your heart-of-hearts which category
this falls into, but just in case, and using your example: when GTD
tells you to go rake leaves during a hurricane, will you have the sense
God gave you to get in out of the rain?

There, I thought so. No outdoor context necessary.

On the other hand, if the existence of an INDOOR list will make you
more likely to get stuff done rather than sit around eating Doritos and
yelling at the television, by all means make one.

Best,
Jeff

[Betsy Schwartz]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:21:12 -0500, Jeff Porten <civ...@jeffporten.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Bill Nalen wrote:
> > It seems to me that if the list is pretty big (I dunno, maybe > 25
> > items) it might induce me to not want to look at it. So how big are
> > most NA type lists?

I'm having an interesting reaction to my new , long list. I used to
have priority A,B,C lists, and all sorts of cruft hung out in my
C-priority list. Now, the things that are next actions are sitting on
my "next actions" list and I'm realizing that I really don't intend to
do some of them - and others are really things that should wait for a
while, or have prerequisites (including not starting things that I
won't have time to follow through on)

So my initiall huge scary NextActions lists are getting shorter again.
But it's hard to "declutter" lists sometimes!

[Jeff Porten]

On Mar 26, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Betsy Schwartz wrote:

> I'm having an interesting reaction to my new , long list. I used to
> have priority A,B,C lists, and all sorts of cruft hung out in my
> C-priority list. Now, the things that are next actions are sitting on
> my "next actions" list and I'm realizing that I really don't intend to
> do some of them

Right now I'm using a trimodal system, which is sort-of working, as
follows:

1) DayLite to organize specific projects and next actions

2) Life Balance to organize recurring tasks (i.e., attend to next
actions for Client X in DayLite, or catch up on work-related RSS feeds)

3) a catch-all "task brainstorm" list in OmniOutliner 3.

The list acts as an automatic incubator, since EVERY new project that
is not already part of a DayLite metaproject (i.e., if a client isn't
paying me for it) goes there. Since I only roll around to processing
this list as LB tells me to, it automatically makes me reassess my
brilliant ideas in the cold light of day.

YMMV. I'm finding that this system *does* cause me to miss stuff from
time to time, but it's so far a decent way of preventing me from
rabbiting off on a new idea when my older ideas are calling for my
attention.

Best,
Jeff

[Jean Diaz]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:21:12 -0500, Jeff Porten <civ...@jeffporten.com> wrote:
>

> On the other hand, if the existence of an INDOOR list will make you
> more likely to get stuff done rather than sit around eating Doritos and
> yelling at the television, by all means make one.

I actually have @Daylight@Anywhere and @Daylight@Home sublists. (I
use Life Balance's 'open/closed' feature so that these show up during
the appropriate hours, and then include them into the relevant
@Anywhere and @Home lists, which are the ones I actually look at.)

This keeps me from 'glazing' in the evening when various outdoor tasks
can't be done.

Ambar