Total restriction is tyranny – ruled by a despotic tomato, and forced to work like a robot.
I’ve heard some people describe the unnaturalness of the pomodoro method as a benefit. The reasoning is that if you take breaks when you feel like it, you’re likely to do it 1) after completing a task and before starting the next one, or 2) when the task you’re on becomes unusually unpleasant. This timing makes it more difficult / painful to get moving again after the break. If you instead take breaks when you’re interrupted by a timer, there’s an obvious point at which to resume and a flow to get back into. You might even want to get back to what you were doing. I’ve found this somewhat true for myself.
The downside to this approach is that you’re more likely to lose a lot of state than if you take breaks at times that feel natural. I don’t know if there’s a good way to combine the two.
Re 1), there are pros and cons about breaking at the end of a task. If you instead force yourself to start the next task first, that overcomes the hurdle of ‘not wanting to start’, but breaking mid-task makes it harder to get back to what you were doing when you resume (which is I think what you meant by your final paragraph). And/or makes you more likely to think about what you were working on during your break, which defeats the point of the break. There’s research into this. I may say stuff about it in Part 2 of the article.
[ADDED:] Also, if you finish a task mid-pomodoro, doesn’t the system tell you to spend the rest of the 25 minutes reviewing/planning, rather than starting a new task? Which means you do end up breaking between tasks.
2) Indeed. Hence Pomodoro conditions you into stopping & starting automatically when the alarm goes off. But Third Time also conditions you into starting automatically when the alarm goes off (at the end of a break). In Third Time’s case you may well choose to stop at a very bad point to re-start from, though in Pomodoro’s case you will (more often?) be forced to stop at a bad point to stop at (viz. mid-flow). So not clear which, if either, is better.
I’ve heard some people describe the unnaturalness of the pomodoro method as a benefit. The reasoning is that if you take breaks when you feel like it, you’re likely to do it 1) after completing a task and before starting the next one, or 2) when the task you’re on becomes unusually unpleasant. This timing makes it more difficult / painful to get moving again after the break. If you instead take breaks when you’re interrupted by a timer, there’s an obvious point at which to resume and a flow to get back into. You might even want to get back to what you were doing. I’ve found this somewhat true for myself.
The downside to this approach is that you’re more likely to lose a lot of state than if you take breaks at times that feel natural. I don’t know if there’s a good way to combine the two.
Re 1), there are pros and cons about breaking at the end of a task. If you instead force yourself to start the next task first, that overcomes the hurdle of ‘not wanting to start’, but breaking mid-task makes it harder to get back to what you were doing when you resume (which is I think what you meant by your final paragraph). And/or makes you more likely to think about what you were working on during your break, which defeats the point of the break. There’s research into this. I may say stuff about it in Part 2 of the article.
[ADDED:] Also, if you finish a task mid-pomodoro, doesn’t the system tell you to spend the rest of the 25 minutes reviewing/planning, rather than starting a new task? Which means you do end up breaking between tasks.
2) Indeed. Hence Pomodoro conditions you into stopping & starting automatically when the alarm goes off. But Third Time also conditions you into starting automatically when the alarm goes off (at the end of a break). In Third Time’s case you may well choose to stop at a very bad point to re-start from, though in Pomodoro’s case you will (more often?) be forced to stop at a bad point to stop at (viz. mid-flow). So not clear which, if either, is better.