|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote to this guy asking for more information because I'd like to have all the history here. Twice in fact. He did not reply.
There are no references to "Idea Sunbursting" on the web, according to Google, Yahoo and MSN - well, there are now, but they are my references. If anyone can provide more information so that we can "recognize history" I'd be only too pleased. Vic
I have rebuilt the site quite a few times since that article was written. It was done using MindManager 2002. When Mindjet upgraded to X5, they discontinued a lot of the magic that made that site work. I was forced to either
a) get heavily involved in HTML templates/editing/CSS and other geeky stuff, or b) stay with MindManager 2002, or c) abandon the thought of the site as a mind map. I chose c. Since then, I have redone the site again and it is now a Moodle site. I expect it to remain Moodle more or less forever. Moodle is open source, very flexible and easy to manage. I still use MindManager (X6 now) but I don't have the ergs to manage a MindManager-created web site any more. Ed Borasky, 2007 April 13 P.S.: Moodle is at http://www.moodle.org :)
Tradtional mind maps have always been around a central topic. However, reading patterns has already dictated a very significant limitation to how free form mind maps can be made. Only few mind maps typically break the rule of writing all text horizontally (i.e. in parallel). It would not be efficient if it was not. Our studies have shown [A citation or at least more detail are needed I think, if you're going to make claims that go against the general trend in mind mapping - Vic] that left to right mind mapping style is more efficient especially on computers where screen limitations play an important factor. Two factors are probably important: The practicalities of using the traditional blackboard that had these very wide formats and a hypothesis that organizing the mind map that way would give a visual representation of the map. However, computer mind mapping differs from that in a number of ways:
1) The map is automatically relayouted when new topics are added, so the topic that was at 9'o'clock yesterday may now be at 6.30. Some mind map developers have made a number of small experiments where they have asked trained mind mappers to try to recall the topography of a mind map structured to the right compared to traditional maps. With stable maps (i.e. maps that were not continuously developed either by the subject himself or by others) and maps written on paper, location could be reproduced, but the topographical memory with unstable maps was poor beyond upper/lower information. 2) Writing maps on a blackboard or a piece of paper is traditionally used as process tool - and the product is discarded later. What some developers have targeted with the computer applications is to use mind maps not only as a part of a writing or analyses process, but rather to help organizing knowledge continuously and giving a time-efficient tool to keep the overview. That changes the lifetime of a map and it implies that the layout may change. Therefore relying on people remembering the physical layout may not be beneficially. One of the claims has been that mind mapping on a computer would become more efficient, if you sacrifice the ability to map around a central topic. We have focussed and are advocating left to right mind mappaing. To see an example and the benefits of left to right comapping on on computers please goto comapping.com
Omar, I find it difficult to agree with your characterizations of computer-based mind mapping, and the conclusions you reach as a result.
One of the reasons for the central node and so-called "radiant" design is precisely to get away from the left to right, top to bottom rigidity of reading (with the latin alphabet, anyway), isn't it? And there are mind map software packages that allow free layout: The first thing I do in MindManager when starting a new mind map is switch off AutoLayout. I like to decide where things go myself and the ability to move them round helps me indicate associations that I can later explore and perhaps change or strengthen with a curved line. I agree with your point 2) that completed computer-based mind maps are often the basis for organizing information now - I think it's something that is not sufficiently recognized by many software developers. I've been doing that in consulting projects for years, and have no trouble finding things, because MindManager lets me control the layout. So do other packages. [Readers can see a summary of details of Comapping, by going to www.mind-mapping.org and enter comapping in the search box at the top right - Vic]
Dear Vic,
I agree that when one speaks about free form mind mapping especially for initial brainstorming that the radiant design is the best. Also that the original form of mind mapping was made for traditional off line usage where one would make a quick mind map on the white board to start a brainstorming sessions. In most casses one would then throw the mind maps away and then that was it. Computer mind mapping is different in that you go back and revisit it many times. On top there is the limitations of the screen. In a complex map one spends a lot of time scrolling up and down and right and left. What I like about left to right mind mapping is that it that it provides a more structure overview especially given that I plan to work on that mind map a number of times. But I do agree that it is also a matter of taste. A more structured form of mind mapping is a compromise between simple linear thinking (word documents) and free form brainstorming. I just find that when collaborating online it is better for me to work on a more structured form of mind mapping vs free form where I have to scroll up and down and spend more time to get an overview of the semantic structure (especially if I did not make the map). I also noticed that is easier for people who don't have a clue of mind mapping to work on a more structured form. But I again I think it is highly dependent on taste as well as the purpose one it using it for. Thanks for your observations. Best regards Omar
I went to http://www.borasky-research.net to find information on mind mapping as suggested in your article but alas there was nothing there. Is there some hidden way into the site that I should be aware of?
fiona-ian,
Please see the third comment, it's from Ed Borasky. But no, you didn't miss it last time. I had an email from him telling me about this, and I had added it to my site, but forgot to enable it before, so you were not able to see it. My apologies. Vic |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Mind Mapping" is a copy of"Idea Sunbursting" NJDE, T4C 1968- but actually does not offer the extensions for all educators to use to advance this methodology for organzing thinking and work actions and recording of work as was created with the Technology for Children Program work initiative.
Copyright Law was done to protect Intellectual Property just as Patent Law
Dr.Wes Perusek, Director, OSGC(NASA) Invention Innovation Centers Project
Advisor, Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies
Distinguished Alumni, College of Technology, Kent
State University
Former Associate State Director, New Jersey Department of Education
Technology for Children Program-Statewide
Initiator,New Jersey MIIT Program-Statewide
6165 Creekside Lane
North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039
440-353=2750
perusek@alltel.net
Printed, copyright documents are evidence of the avove data.