Freemind's Underrated/Underreported New Feature for Non-Followers
Started by Foolness
on 12/14/2012
Foolness
12/14/2012 7:10 pm
There's a recent rant thread (http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/4635/ looking for a clone feature and the FreeMind page as of this visit:
http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FreeMind_1.0.0:_The_New_Features
Clones: nodes and its sub-nodes can be cloned. The two copies will then be synchronized
Collaboration: two or more people can work simultaneously on the same map
Restore complete session
Location based mindmapping
Spell checking on input
I didn't post there for three reasons.
1) Freemind doesn't have all the features the author requested and it's still a mindmap though I've always personally categorized fishbone software as pane outliners disguising themselves as mindmaps.
2) Freemind is still clunky and is not my recommended mapper compared to Compendium. (Even for the rant thread, if he had been looking for a mapper instead of an outliner, I thought Compendium especially the old version had better seamless drag and drop pics and url icon handling for the Windows version.) I just happened to recently found an outline template that is structured exactly on two axis and fishboning seemed like the perfect excuse to retest Freemind.
3) I didn't actually download the new version and it was the old version of Freemind that had new features I didn't thought Freemind had. It was just coincidence that the topic was there. I was planning to make a new thread here about Freemind because the feature is hidden in places where, unless you reread the help files, you'd missed it.
The (old) new features are:
Here's the tricky thing. There's actually "three" types of text field now. If you just press insert, Freemind still thinks it's a basic no format text field. Only when you type and edit a long sentence inside the field do you get the second field which is just a pop-up text box with no formatting but makes for easier editing of the words much like Compendium's default text field.
The third format box ONLY appears if you highlight the text and press "ALT+ENTER". The program asks if you want formatting (and will continue to ask if you don't remember the decision) and only then will Freemind show an editor with bold, italic, underline and a way to insert tables.
This one I don't know how old the feature is but I've only discovered that you can drag the nodes like an actual nodes and it's no longer just a fishbone line. Maybe it was always there but I just didn't notice because the way the program registers that area, you have to highlight the right side of your text field in order to find a small oval besides your text. Holding the left mouse button while that oval is clicked (it turns red) allows free form dragging. Not that it's much use but it does reduce most of the wasted space a fishbone software tends to create.
In the left side of the toolbar where the zoom is, there's a funnel. Click that and now you can insert words that filters out your maps which basically allows a reverse style of PersonalBrain where you no longer have to always find for the words and then find next for the words. The filter saves the word in a file so it's clunky for one time filters but it's kinda sorta allows Freemind to have tags now and makes Freemind a truer free alternative to PersonalBrain's feature where before there was none. I still prefer Compendium's folder structure but at least mapping innovations are moving on again in the free arena and it's moving in ways that are different from outliner innovations.
http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FreeMind_1.0.0:_The_New_Features
Clones: nodes and its sub-nodes can be cloned. The two copies will then be synchronized
Collaboration: two or more people can work simultaneously on the same map
Restore complete session
Location based mindmapping
Spell checking on input
I didn't post there for three reasons.
1) Freemind doesn't have all the features the author requested and it's still a mindmap though I've always personally categorized fishbone software as pane outliners disguising themselves as mindmaps.
2) Freemind is still clunky and is not my recommended mapper compared to Compendium. (Even for the rant thread, if he had been looking for a mapper instead of an outliner, I thought Compendium especially the old version had better seamless drag and drop pics and url icon handling for the Windows version.) I just happened to recently found an outline template that is structured exactly on two axis and fishboning seemed like the perfect excuse to retest Freemind.
3) I didn't actually download the new version and it was the old version of Freemind that had new features I didn't thought Freemind had. It was just coincidence that the topic was there. I was planning to make a new thread here about Freemind because the feature is hidden in places where, unless you reread the help files, you'd missed it.
The (old) new features are:
An entry has a RTF style field now. In short, Freemind has caught up with other fishbone software and it's still the only one on the desktop that's free, cross-platform and popular.
Here's the tricky thing. There's actually "three" types of text field now. If you just press insert, Freemind still thinks it's a basic no format text field. Only when you type and edit a long sentence inside the field do you get the second field which is just a pop-up text box with no formatting but makes for easier editing of the words much like Compendium's default text field.
The third format box ONLY appears if you highlight the text and press "ALT+ENTER". The program asks if you want formatting (and will continue to ask if you don't remember the decision) and only then will Freemind show an editor with bold, italic, underline and a way to insert tables.
Freemind has drag and drop
This one I don't know how old the feature is but I've only discovered that you can drag the nodes like an actual nodes and it's no longer just a fishbone line. Maybe it was always there but I just didn't notice because the way the program registers that area, you have to highlight the right side of your text field in order to find a small oval besides your text. Holding the left mouse button while that oval is clicked (it turns red) allows free form dragging. Not that it's much use but it does reduce most of the wasted space a fishbone software tends to create.
Freemind has filters
In the left side of the toolbar where the zoom is, there's a funnel. Click that and now you can insert words that filters out your maps which basically allows a reverse style of PersonalBrain where you no longer have to always find for the words and then find next for the words. The filter saves the word in a file so it's clunky for one time filters but it's kinda sorta allows Freemind to have tags now and makes Freemind a truer free alternative to PersonalBrain's feature where before there was none. I still prefer Compendium's folder structure but at least mapping innovations are moving on again in the free arena and it's moving in ways that are different from outliner innovations.
Alexander Deliyannis
12/14/2012 8:52 pm
Thanks; this is interesting. I'm not aware of an other mind mapping software supporting clones, though it's been a while since I watched that scene.
Interestingly, some of the Freemind developers had forked it to Freeplane due to the slow progress, but now Freemind seems to be catching up. There's no mention in the Freeplane site of clones at least.
Interestingly, some of the Freemind developers had forked it to Freeplane due to the slow progress, but now Freemind seems to be catching up. There's no mention in the Freeplane site of clones at least.
Stephen Zeoli
12/14/2012 8:55 pm
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
Thanks; this is interesting. I'm not aware of an other mind mapping
software supporting clones, though it's been a while since I watched
that scene.
I think it is unusual, but TheBrain has had that ability for a long time. Whether you want to call TheBrain a mind mapper or not, is another question.
Alexander Deliyannis
12/14/2012 10:25 pm
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
I wouldn't actually. Its paradigm is much more open (connect anything to anything, and any "node" can be used as the home). Dynamic animation aside, structurally it is a concept mapping tool, especially in its recent incarnations where the connectors have their own properties.
Mind mappers are little more than visually enhanced hierarchical outlining tools. As such, they suffer from the "everything is miscellaneous" weakness of outlines, i.e. they can't include the same item under different branches. Clones offer a solution to this issue but, again, though quite easily found in outliners, I have not seen them in 'standard' mind mapping applications.
TheBrain has had that ability for a long time. Whether you want to call TheBrain a mind mapper or not, is another
question.
I wouldn't actually. Its paradigm is much more open (connect anything to anything, and any "node" can be used as the home). Dynamic animation aside, structurally it is a concept mapping tool, especially in its recent incarnations where the connectors have their own properties.
Mind mappers are little more than visually enhanced hierarchical outlining tools. As such, they suffer from the "everything is miscellaneous" weakness of outlines, i.e. they can't include the same item under different branches. Clones offer a solution to this issue but, again, though quite easily found in outliners, I have not seen them in 'standard' mind mapping applications.
Dr Andus
12/14/2012 11:02 pm
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
In terms of outlining, a standard mind mapper is even more limited than a standard single-pane outliner, as in a mind-mapper you can have (in fact you are forced to have) only one level-1 item (everything else being level-2 etc.), whilst in an outliner you can have as many level-1 items as you like.
Interestingly mind mappers in this sense are more similar to wikis, as in a wiki you are forced to define a home page (index), which is your single level-1 item - although you are not forced to link everything else to it, as you are in mind mappers.
ConnectedText has a tool to view wiki pages as a mind map, though only those pages will show in the given view that have been connected. In fact I've just realised that this feature makes CT a mind-mapper with cloning ability, as discussed in this thread (although it won't let you reorder the items in the mind-map view: items are displayed in the order of creation or modification, unfortunately).
Mind mappers are little more than visually enhanced hierarchical
outlining tools. As such, they suffer from the "everything is
miscellaneous" weakness of outlines, i.e. they can't include the same
item under different branches. Clones offer a solution to this issue
but, again, though quite easily found in outliners, I have not seen them
in 'standard' mind mapping applications.
In terms of outlining, a standard mind mapper is even more limited than a standard single-pane outliner, as in a mind-mapper you can have (in fact you are forced to have) only one level-1 item (everything else being level-2 etc.), whilst in an outliner you can have as many level-1 items as you like.
Interestingly mind mappers in this sense are more similar to wikis, as in a wiki you are forced to define a home page (index), which is your single level-1 item - although you are not forced to link everything else to it, as you are in mind mappers.
ConnectedText has a tool to view wiki pages as a mind map, though only those pages will show in the given view that have been connected. In fact I've just realised that this feature makes CT a mind-mapper with cloning ability, as discussed in this thread (although it won't let you reorder the items in the mind-map view: items are displayed in the order of creation or modification, unfortunately).
Foolness
12/15/2012 2:09 pm
While I can't say if my understanding of Mindmaps is correct "historically", my understanding of Mindmaps makes it so that it's superior to both Outliners and Concept Mapping by virtue of being "above the fray".
This doesn't mean Mindmapping programs have correctly implemented the theory but Outliners can't do ConnectedTexts, Wikis didn't have a branch until ConnectedText borrowed a type of tree from outliners and Concept mappers missed the whole point about mindmaps and came much later taking advantage of the confusion of mindmaps because of how it was primarily marketed and then using the false impression of the mindmap as a way to lift the concept map "above or equal" to the concept of mapping.
The issue with the confusion lies with the common misconceptions:
No, they don't. It would be like saying GTD's in-basket have one level compared to an outline list.
That's only the initial in-basket. The In-Basket does not make for GTD or else it would be called a Bucket List, not a System.
That was the standard. The marketers and popularizers of mindmaps chose to destroy that standard because it made it easier to sell software when it was still a fad.
I've actually often been on the other side of the debate. I've always defended concept maps as superior and I didn't change my opinion. The actual definition of concept maps are much simpler to understand and are hidden in less voo doo when in need of defending it's standards. It's just that mindmaps do have a standard and that standard doesn't have cloning because the initial feature of the mindmap is not text input but data lay-out. It is in that sense, a truer free form (in principle and paradigm) than both a concept mapper and an outliner who encourages the input field of the data to get larger as it is getting filled and reviewed.
The levels of a mindmap are actually found in encouraging two mindmaps of a similar vein no different than a professional digital artist would have more layers than an amateur digital artist. So much so that some of the better programs have in it's layer toolbox the option to give folders to those layers for each art item which then allows it a superior form of editing that only ConnectedText is scratching for outliners and wikis.
The software standard to understanding mindmaps is not found in wikis but in hashtags. Programs like Workflowy for example no longer simply make the symbol "#" a dead letter hack but putting it in front gives it authority to be a clickable tag.
TheBrain doesn't have this. Concept Mappers, as a paradigm, don't have this.
Part of it sounds hoaky because of the marketing but just like doodling, the paper is not the index. The paper is indexing the contours being seen/recalled by the eye that was then interpreted by the brain.
Only concept mappers have that mode that what you are outlining is what you are indexing in it's paradigm. Not that mindmap users did anything to change the impression but that's why I hated the fisbone concept. It took one fad by Mindmanager then ripped it and then it became the popular image because it came out first.
Meanwhile majority of the real mindmapping standards went towards digital art tools (by accident because they rely on similar fundamentals) and the rest as they say is forever separated by the vanity of paper mindmaps, artsy mindmaps, slideshow mindmaps, software mindmaps.
Not even innovations like Compendium's list icon having special a special list field that in the outliner world mostly InfoQube have been innovating or Goalscape's Pie Map returning some medium of "picture" concept to a mapping software were able to change the trend. As worst comes to worst, the tag concept mapper allows certain software the right to not be the standard but fit the tag like TheBrain but Freemind ate Flying Logic, Goalscape, Compendium, Portable ClusterMap software, PearlTrees, etc. underneath it's paradigm.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a categorization error. After all, these software still continue to exist. The concept still leads to releases and updates.
What's bad is that now the paradigm needs it's version of a SCRUM to get the software world back to understanding what it isn't offering even though for a long while, so far as paradigm goes, the waterfall model have been what's been holding back the standardization of mindmaps much like it held back certain development processes. When that day comes, will mindmaps finally be understood or will it lead to another what makes mindmapping so revolutionary fad? Only time will tell but it's horrible that sequential design as a paradigm still haunts all areas of life today and it mainly affects those who need rather than want more from software.
This doesn't mean Mindmapping programs have correctly implemented the theory but Outliners can't do ConnectedTexts, Wikis didn't have a branch until ConnectedText borrowed a type of tree from outliners and Concept mappers missed the whole point about mindmaps and came much later taking advantage of the confusion of mindmaps because of how it was primarily marketed and then using the false impression of the mindmap as a way to lift the concept map "above or equal" to the concept of mapping.
The issue with the confusion lies with the common misconceptions:
Mindmaps have one level:
No, they don't. It would be like saying GTD's in-basket have one level compared to an outline list.
That's only the initial in-basket. The In-Basket does not make for GTD or else it would be called a Bucket List, not a System.
That was the standard. The marketers and popularizers of mindmaps chose to destroy that standard because it made it easier to sell software when it was still a fad.
I've actually often been on the other side of the debate. I've always defended concept maps as superior and I didn't change my opinion. The actual definition of concept maps are much simpler to understand and are hidden in less voo doo when in need of defending it's standards. It's just that mindmaps do have a standard and that standard doesn't have cloning because the initial feature of the mindmap is not text input but data lay-out. It is in that sense, a truer free form (in principle and paradigm) than both a concept mapper and an outliner who encourages the input field of the data to get larger as it is getting filled and reviewed.
The levels of a mindmap are actually found in encouraging two mindmaps of a similar vein no different than a professional digital artist would have more layers than an amateur digital artist. So much so that some of the better programs have in it's layer toolbox the option to give folders to those layers for each art item which then allows it a superior form of editing that only ConnectedText is scratching for outliners and wikis.
Wikis are post-input mark-up, mindmappers became an artsy fad because it had a revolutionary pre-production markup in it's initial form
The software standard to understanding mindmaps is not found in wikis but in hashtags. Programs like Workflowy for example no longer simply make the symbol "#" a dead letter hack but putting it in front gives it authority to be a clickable tag.
TheBrain doesn't have this. Concept Mappers, as a paradigm, don't have this.
The homepage of mindmappers are the mind:
Part of it sounds hoaky because of the marketing but just like doodling, the paper is not the index. The paper is indexing the contours being seen/recalled by the eye that was then interpreted by the brain.
Only concept mappers have that mode that what you are outlining is what you are indexing in it's paradigm. Not that mindmap users did anything to change the impression but that's why I hated the fisbone concept. It took one fad by Mindmanager then ripped it and then it became the popular image because it came out first.
Meanwhile majority of the real mindmapping standards went towards digital art tools (by accident because they rely on similar fundamentals) and the rest as they say is forever separated by the vanity of paper mindmaps, artsy mindmaps, slideshow mindmaps, software mindmaps.
Not even innovations like Compendium's list icon having special a special list field that in the outliner world mostly InfoQube have been innovating or Goalscape's Pie Map returning some medium of "picture" concept to a mapping software were able to change the trend. As worst comes to worst, the tag concept mapper allows certain software the right to not be the standard but fit the tag like TheBrain but Freemind ate Flying Logic, Goalscape, Compendium, Portable ClusterMap software, PearlTrees, etc. underneath it's paradigm.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a categorization error. After all, these software still continue to exist. The concept still leads to releases and updates.
What's bad is that now the paradigm needs it's version of a SCRUM to get the software world back to understanding what it isn't offering even though for a long while, so far as paradigm goes, the waterfall model have been what's been holding back the standardization of mindmaps much like it held back certain development processes. When that day comes, will mindmaps finally be understood or will it lead to another what makes mindmapping so revolutionary fad? Only time will tell but it's horrible that sequential design as a paradigm still haunts all areas of life today and it mainly affects those who need rather than want more from software.
Dr Andus
12/20/2012 3:45 pm
Has anyone evaluated Freemind vs. Freeplane recently? Some time ago I switched to Freeplane as it seemed to be more feature-rich and more vigorously developed, while preserving the best of Freemind.
However, I found some recent changes in Freeplane a bit disappointing, as the interface somehow became busier and feels clunkier to use. And now cloning in Freemind sounds positively interesting. Time to switch back?
However, I found some recent changes in Freeplane a bit disappointing, as the interface somehow became busier and feels clunkier to use. And now cloning in Freemind sounds positively interesting. Time to switch back?
Dr Andus
12/20/2012 3:53 pm
Just updated to Freeplane v. 1.2.20 and it seems to have improved some of the interface and usability issues I've had with it.