I was blown away when I've seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2d312_dXEs

I can't wait when some PIM will incorporate it and I will be able to navigate "universe of my knowledge" :)

Quant, very interesting.

How would you assess practicality of such software? It reminded me of The Personal Brain - of which I am never quite sure how helpful the GUI is.

The most recent date I could find on the program pages was 2009 - is it still being developed, I wonder, and if so, when will it be marketed as a standalone or part of another program?

Daly

quant wrote:

I was blown away when I've seen
this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2d312_dXEs

I can't wait when some PIM
will incorporate it and I will be able to navigate "universe of my knowledge" :)

I thought it was very cool. Unfortunately, as it looks here, it might be a lot more cool than useful. That's a might busy interface for practical usage. The amount of knowledge you could display looks impressive but I'm not sure how I'd use such a thing.

Tom S.

I think it's not just the amount of data, it's the "data with relationships" that it could display efficiently.
Once you start to have multiple parents and links between "far" items, it's impossible to display it in tree structure.
Also programs like the brain, connectd text, mind raider have problem with that, because it's in plane.
This adds another dimension, look at how many triangles and cycled graphs are there in that video, which means highly structured data, if implemented properly (limiting displayed data by closedness attribute etc), this could display sooooo much more structure that it could be a real eye opener - it could give you new ideas, because you'd suddenly see something that's just not possible now. At 7:00 there is an example where how the graph and functions would allow you to see certain relationship between data (strict pecking order), that might be difficult to figure otherwise or maybe you wouldn't even think there could be some.

The colors, links, directions, weight, everything is programmable, it could have soo many functionalities implemented ...

For what it's worth, ConnectedText's "graph command" lets you represent the data as "non directed" (or non-acyclic) graphs that do show the relationships and how close they are. The graph command is different from the Navigator, by the way.

You can specify the depth of the graph, i.e. how many levels deep you want to go. My experience is that in a large project with many interconnections, more than 3 levels is too deep for any graph to make sense.

Still, you can show how close or distant a topic is from another topic and what interconnections exist between different topics. It's quite useful.

I agree that a tree cannot deal with this. You need a more flexible data structure. But it is possible to do a lot on a plane. One does not necessarily need 3 D, unless one wants to go to higher levels of complexity than two or three levels deep. (It seems to me that if computer screens were larger, even a depth of four or five levels would make sense without 3 D.

Manfred

I would prefer visual tools that preserve spatial relationships in the plane. I find tools like The Brain hard to extract meaningful information from, because things move around, and the brain's ability to remember spatial cues is lost. Spatial relationships can be, in themselves, metadata.

The problem then becomes that as your data relationships become more complex, you can only meaningfully represent a subset of your data in a single plane, which means that tools need to support multiple 2-D spatial views. I think Tinderbox does this relatively well.

I like MindManager's layout algorithms too, as you can force the program to arrange items in certain kinds of spatial relationships, but the program's tree-based data model is pretty darn limited.

It's a shame there aren't more spatial PIM tools. Mark Bernstein occasionally points to research papers on his blog discussing some pretty interesting spatial PIM tools, but they don't seem to make it out of the lab very often.

If you want to see what it looks like, see http://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2010/09/outliners-in-connectedtext.html

Manfred

yeah, I know. I tested it few years ago and again about two weeks ago when I was checking whether it can handle something with link descriptions in navigator.
I tested it very quickly, so the following "critisism" should be taken very lightly ;-)
- deleted one item, moved around, got error message "invalid class typecast"
- one click doesn't seem to do anything on the navigator
- moving item reorganizes items in such a way, that I was lost (maybe just needs time to get used to)
- couldn't find the zoom and rotate for navigator (is there?) and how many connections the graph should display
- the biggest problem was that I could not find a way to connect two items in the navigator, tried holding, clicking, shift, ctrl was connecting something, but I didn't figure out what, definitelly not the item I had selected and then clicking on the other,

many of the points I mentioned above were straightforward in mindraider (I think it uses the same plugin for the navigator?) which I tested immediatelly after connectedtext.




------------------------
If you want to see what it looks like, see http://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2010/09/outliners-in-connectedtext.html

Manfred

I should have mentioned that I have not read any help file or manual for connectedtext ;-)

Quant,
this has nothing to do with the navigator which I actually never use. It's a new capability introduced in 4.0.0.1 about a year ago (September 22, 2009).
Manfred

Can't help but comment when I see references to Connected Text that when I tried it out last time I found the help files unintelligible, and a vid made by a prof on how to use CT for references and research, which looked like it might be helpful, was a big disappointment. I wrote the company, and as far as I recollect, never got a reply. Guess they don't need me or others who can't comprehend as well as they do.

Programs like CT - and even UltraRecall - forfeit market share with help materials that are not intelligible to guys like me. Just because I can't understand a program's instructions doesn't mean I don't need and would be willing to pay for what the program does.

There used to be a time when technical writers were valued - and there was a reason for it.

Anyhow, that's my tangent to the topic.

Daly

Agree, one can do a lot on plane, problem is there aren't many tools that show more than a tree. This "visualization tool" would take it completely to another level.

In the video they show that one can enforce planar 2d map, it was great how 3d map changed to 2d. It might be that one is getting lost in 2d and can move to 3d, it could help to provide the "aha moment" ;-)

Manfred wrote:

I agree that a tree cannot deal with this. You need a more flexible data
structure. But it is possible to do a lot on a plane. One does not necessarily need 3 D,
unless one wants to go to higher levels of complexity than two or three levels deep. (It
seems to me that if computer screens were larger, even a depth of four or five levels
would make sense without 3 D.

Manfred

"I found the help files unintelligible," ...

I understand that help files are important, even though I also know that most of us read them only as a last resort. To reject an application just because the help files are not quite adequate seems to me to put the cart before the horse, anyway. Furthermore, there are a lot of "promising" applications discussed here that don't have any help files at all.

The Company that develops ConnectedText is based in Brazil. I am sure they have very competent technical writers in Portuguese. That being said, "unintelligible" is certainly an unwarranted exaggeration.

For what it's worth, ConnectedText is the **only** application that makes **me** stick with Windows.

Anybody is, of course, entitled to their own opinion as to the quality of a program?especially if they know next to nothing about it.

Daly, this will be my last post in this forum so you won't have to be annoyed with my comments or posts any longer. I don't need this ...

From one Canadian to another,

Manfred

quant wrote:

I think it's not just the amount of data, it's the "data with relationships" that it
could display efficiently.
Once you start to have multiple parents and links
between "far" items, it's impossible to display it in tree structure.
Also programs
like the brain, connectd text, mind raider have problem with that, because it's in
plane.

Your comments remind me of a story. When I was a graduate student I was putting together some data and presented my advisor with a graph that represented a 3 dimensional relationship. He said he 'd always wanted to publish a graph like that. It was a very compact graph with a lot of information about the relationships involved. The problem was that no one could focus enough on any one of the relationships on the plot to be able to define the position of each point with the precision we required. In the end, we went with two 2D graphs to represent the data.

The need to evaluate the relationships in this program isn't for anything quite as precise. But I was really overwhelmed with what I saw on the screen and I'm thinking it would be too easy to get lost in it and too difficult to focus on any one relationship.

Could be wrong.

Tom S.

you're probably right, and I'm too optimistic about this 3d. we can only speculate now.

The small difference from your situation is that you had static 3d map showing it only from single view. Say if I couldn't make head and tail out of what I saw, I could try to rotate it, in whatever direction, or flatten it to 2d, or try different layout. maybe it would help, maybe not.

It might be also that we are simply not used to see info with all the relationship in 3d, or maybe it's just too much for our brains to grasp it.

But I'd really love to give it a goooood try :)

Tom S. wrote:

quant wrote:
>I think it's not just the amount of data, it's the "data with
relationships" that it
>could display efficiently.
>Once you start to have
multiple parents and links
>between "far" items, it's impossible to display it in
tree structure.
>Also programs
>like the brain, connectd text, mind raider have
problem with that, because it's in
>plane.

Your comments remind me of a story. When
I was a graduate student I was putting together some data and presented my advisor with
a graph that represented a 3 dimensional relationship. He said he 'd always wanted to
publish a graph like that. It was a very compact graph with a lot of information about
the relationships involved. The problem was that no one could focus enough on any one
of the relationships on the plot to be able to define the position of each point with the
precision we required. In the end, we went with two 2D graphs to represent the
data.

The need to evaluate the relationships in this program isn't for anything
quite as precise. But I was really overwhelmed with what I saw on the screen and I'm
thinking it would be too easy to get lost in it and too difficult to focus on any one
relationship.

Could be wrong.

Tom S.

Hi Quant,

Let me try to address some of your comments:

- deleted one item, moved around, got error message ?invalid class typecast?
- one click doesn?t seem to do anything on the navigator

True. If you double click a topic it will be presented in the viewer.

- moving item reorganizes items in such a way, that I was lost (maybe just needs time to get used to)

The graph is reorganized automatically after an it is moved using a force related algorithm.

- couldn?t find the zoom and rotate for navigator (is there?) and how many connections the graph should display

You can zoom using the mouse wheel. There are two buttons in the toolbar that can be used to rotate the graph.

- the biggest problem was that I could not find a way to connect two items in the navigator, tried holding, clicking, shift, ctrl was connecting something, but I didn?t figure out what, definitelly not the item I had selected and then clicking on the other,

You can't link two topics using the navigator because ConnectedText is a wiki system. Connections are made in the text using [[ ]]. The navigator just shows the how your topics are linked. It is not a tool for linking them. In Personal Brain you can link two topics. In CT just enclose any word or words with [[ ]] and a link is created which will shown in the navigator. It is a different concept. May work for some users and may not for others.

I will be glad to answer any question regarding CT. I know that documentation may be a deficiency of CT. All information about it you can found in a project that is bundled with the program. It is also functions as help through F1 key.

Eduardo Mauro
ConnectedText

Manfred - you don't need what any longer? I can tell you're upset, and that I am the cause.

If I offended you, I apologize. I had no intention to do that, or any reason to - I have long respected your contributions to the forum.

My criticisms were directed at Connected Text. Some of us need help files to survive, and for me with wikis that is the case.

I was spurred on to check out CT because of your recommendations. And I can appreciate where you are coming from - I just wish I could make it work for me. I can't, but that isn't your fault, and no criticisms of you were intended.

If your comment about knowing nothing about a program is directed toward me, please know I have on at least two occasions tried to figure out CT on the basis of your recommendations which I valued - and still value - even though I haven't been able to get my head around how to make CT do the things that lead to your being impressed by it.

I wish I could because I appreciate what you are saying - I am just not able to put it into practice.

Incidentally, I also have appreciated your blog http://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/ over the years, especially some of the historical posts on note-taking methods and handling of information.

Anyhow, I hope you do not leave this forum - on my account or for any other reason.

Daly

PS I didn't realize you're Canadian. Whereabouts are you based? I'm in Winnipeg.


Manfred wrote:

"I found the help files unintelligible," ...

I understand that help files are
important, even though I also know that most of us read them only as a last resort. To
reject an application just because the help files are not quite adequate seems to me to
put the cart before the horse, anyway. Furthermore, there are a lot of "promising"
applications discussed here that don't have any help files at all.

The Company that
develops ConnectedText is based in Brazil. I am sure they have very competent
technical writers in Portuguese. That being said, "unintelligible" is certainly an
unwarranted exaggeration.

For what it's worth, ConnectedText is the **only**
application that makes **me** stick with Windows.

Anybody is, of course, entitled
to their own opinion as to the quality of a program?especially if they know next to
nothing about it.

Daly, this will be my last post in this forum so you won't have to be
annoyed with my comments or posts any longer. I don't need this ...

From one Canadian
to another,

Manfred

Please forgive my butting in, but when one galumphs around the internet and sees so much rudeness, hostility and knee-jerk flaming, it's SO refreshing to read someone lowering the temperature by saying "I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to."

Of course, it's SAD that this is so noteworthy and refreshing, but kudos for being a gentleman.

Thanks Rogbar - I feel especially bad in this situation because Manfred is always a gentleman, and he's a guy I do respect. I fear that, as I have been at times in recent months, I was heavy handed in what I wrote without realizing it.

Anyhow, thanks again. I hope this ends well.

Daly

rogbar wrote:

Please forgive my butting in, but when one galumphs around the internet and sees so
much rudeness, hostility and knee-jerk flaming, it's SO refreshing to read someone
lowering the temperature by saying "I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean
to."

Of course, it's SAD that this is so noteworthy and refreshing, but kudos for
being a gentleman.