Forum Posts Feed
Mind versus tree navigation; html versus rtf editing
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Posted by Tom S.
Mar 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Graham Rhind wrote:
>I think a distinction needs to be made between mind maps (as I know them, which, as
>Cassius said, could be expressed in a tree-like linear form); and non-tree-like
>navigation/outliner systems, such as Personal Brain.
>
>An item in a tree can have one
>parent, and multiple children. That’s the basis and at the same time the limitation.
>After that, most tree-like outliners have to think of (mostly awkward) ways of
>creating internal links between branches, such as creating virtual copies of the
>files or having text wiki links.
This is where I thought UR exceled. Consider the screenshot below:
http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Screenshots/AdvSearch.png
What caught my attention about this program was the iittle frame in the lower right hand corner, “Item parents”. What that means is that you can place the item in multiple places in the tree and see, in one shot, where all those places are. A click on the folder or item in this frame brings you to that spot in the tree. This provides perspective and makes navigation much more nimble. It’s a very simple idea but very effective. Indeed, I found this list to be much more effective than trying to follow the connections in PB3.
Tom S.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 19, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
“I think it may in fact be those who are NOT visual thinkers who benefit most [from mind maps]. If spatial visualization is not a strength, the mindmap provides a visible spatial structure, perhaps substituting for less conscious and inexplicit visual structuring that the _low_ visual thinker might find harder to generate.”
I agree; I consider myself a highly visual thinker and find PC mind maps overtly simplistic; nowadays I use them regularly for presentation purposes only.
Re navigation, I think the issue is practical; if I had two monitors side-by-side, I would consider using a mind map or PB for navigation. On a regular single monitor setup though, an outliner tree column is much more effective in terms of screen real estate.
alx
Posted by Cassius
Mar 19, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Tom S, said, “This is where I thought UR exceled. Consider the screenshot below:
http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Screenshots/AdvSearch.png
“What caught my attention about this program was the iittle frame in the lower right hand corner, “Item parents”. What that means is that you can place the item in multiple places in the tree and see, in one shot, where all those places are. A click on the folder or item in this frame brings you to that spot in the tree. This provides perspective and makes navigation much more nimble. It’s a very simple idea but very effective. Indeed, I found this list to be much more effective than trying to follow the connections in PB3.”
Tom,
This appears to be a marvelous means of “surfing” one’s PIM files. I’ll have to see if my trial copy of UR is still working. Way back in the 5-1/4 floppy DOS days, I had a program (called something like ‘Black Magic’) that used hyperlinks as the means of navigating from one info item to the next and back. Seemed like a great idea, but I easily became lost. This UR method gives one an anchor.
Not having tried it yet, I have one question about it. In the GrandView Categories-Assignments view, one could find all outline items related to a specific assignment. [If you’ve never used GV, think of an assignment as a keyword.] Because GV is a single-pane outliner (no tree) an individual outline item found this way might make no sense because its “lineage” (parent, grandparent, etc.) is not shown. I finally created a macro to display the lineage so I’d know the “context” of the outline item. If I understand you correctly, the UR tree fulfills this purpose.
-c
Posted by Cassius
Mar 19, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Both Steve D and Alex D have suggested that non-visual thinkers might benefit most from using mind maps. Not me! When I look at a mind map graphic, the first thing that comes to mind is “scatter brained.” I have used structured diagrams to explicate processes that are difficult to follow when described using only text. Text tries to show some order /structure through the use of commas, dashes, quote marks, parentheses, brackets, braces, etc. {[(” ‘—,,—’ ” ,)]}}, but this doesn’t work very well for complex descriptions {;-)
It has been said of smart people (certainly, all of us) that their thinking often goes off on tangents, some of which are fruitful. Perhaps the “fruitful” is what distinguishes “smart tangents” from “scatter brained,” or ... perhaps not.
Anyway, I find it fun to “tangent,” although you may well find my wanderings irksome.
-c
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Mar 19, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Cassius wrote:
>Both Steve D and Alex D have suggested that non-visual thinkers might benefit most
>from using mind maps. Not me! When I look at a mind map graphic, the first thing that
>comes to mind is “scatter brained.” I have used structured diagrams to explicate
>processes that are difficult to follow when described using only text. Text tries to
>show some order /structure through the use of commas, dashes, quote marks,
>parentheses, brackets, braces, etc. {[(” ‘—,,—’ ” ,)]}}, but this doesn’t work
>very well for complex descriptions {;-)
I’m not sure I follow. You like structured diagrams for complex processes but dislike mindmaps? Are you saying mindmaps are insufficiently structured?
I know I’ve seen many mindmaps that seem like fluff. What I think is important in an analytic mindmap is the same as in any structured diagram. I find there are pre-conditions for using them. You need to have enough faimiliarity with he information that you can represent complex ideas by simple phrases. Basically, I find that mindmapping is a tool for loading short term memory with a lot of information. It presupposes that you have already chunked the material by some other means.