How do you define a great mind map?
Sep 12th, 2008 | By Chuck Frey | Category: Discussion
What are the defining characteristics of an excellent software-produced mind map?
Please share your thoughts in the comments area below. Please help to make this a lively discussion by participating in this little exercise. We’ll all benefit from the exchange of ideas.
I look forward to hearing from you!
Popularity: 18% [?]
I use mind maps primarily to condense large amounts of information into words/images that can trigger quick recall.
Consequently my definition of a great mind map is one which:
1. Uses as few words/sentences as possible; yet preserves the “golden nugget” pieces of information.
2. Uses the rights words and images to instantly create associations in my head to tell me “the whole story” once again.
3. Does not have many levels of depth.
Here are some characteristics I would look for in such a mind map:
- a layout of topics and sub-topics that makes sense and flows well
- choosing the right images and keywords/phrases to clearly communicate the information
- use of “clouds,” colors, or similar ways to visually group ideas
- use the appropriate amount of topics so that it is easy to follow and is not too cluttered
- consistent use of visual elements and style throughout the mind map
- stays focused on the main subject of the mind map
I hope others contribute to this so I can see what their thoughts are.
So bring on more comments!
Great question, Chuck:
My definition of a great map is slightly different than Franklin’s, especially Point 3: “Does not have many levels of depth.”
A great mind map has multiple levels of depth. The basic, i.e., collapsed, Main Topics should be almost painfully simple, containing only enough information to provide a context for the information that follows.
I view maps as “layers of an onion” that can be unfolded, as needed, with each layer, or topic level, containing more information.
I also like maps that make use of graphic tools like boundaries and colored fills to simplify the message by grouping topics together as well as relationships to indicate connections between topics. I also like maps that use frequent comments, call-outs, links, and Notes to explain and interpret information.
Unlike Franklin, I am not so much interested in using maps to “trigger recall” as I am in using maps to simplify complex topics by providing a user-determined combination of context and detail.
I look forward to comments and new perspectives from other mind mapping users. Thank you, Chuck, for providing the basis for a stimulating exchange of opinions.
Roger C. Parker
[...] membership site, I encourage you to comment on Chuck Frey’s recent post on his Mind Mapping Software Blog where he asked: What are the defining characteristics of an excellent software-produced mind [...]
I think that we might see the start of a heated debate here … ;o)
I’m also an advocate of “Does not have many levels of depth.” … to me it is mandatory if you want to be able to remember the info in the map. This is because I tend to use maps in order to view information that I need to remember, I have a visual memory so maps help a lot …
Now if your map is seen as an information repository, then yes, you might have many levels …
A great mind map might have some or all of the following, as highlighted by other commentators:
* when viewed as a whole it’s subject and key points can be taken in and recognised at a glance. It should not be so large or filled with information as to lose or obscure the overall message and key points
* it has a structure, shape and colour that makes it feel good to look at (it should be attractive to behold), encouraging further study
* in addition to branches it may have further information overlayed by use of other features such as relationships, colour, images and call outs. These will be easily discernable from the main structure but neither it nor the layers will conflict or be lost
* the use of boundaries or clouds that gently draw attention to areas with a common theme, similar to the chapters in a book
* use of software filters keyed to icons, images, flags and colour will expose the layers and other views, providing different perspectives or emphasing additional and specific themes. These views can be saved to provide the basis for further study or new maps
* the map is easily exportable to other formats, notably as text files which provide a narrative of the subject aimed at audiences who need or expect information as a document
A thought provoking question – makes one think about the purpose of any map and reminds one to see it as others may see it if it is to be shared.
Hello Chuck,
Thanks for offering this forum for us fellow mindmappers to share our views on your question: “What are the defining characteristics of an excellent software produced mind map?”
I would say the defining characteristics would include mindmaps that incorporate Notes, Document links, and URL links. When you incorporate these features it moves from being a graphical representation of an idea to a multifaceted dashboard and information management system.
With these features added to your mindmap, you’re able to visually represent your idea and elegantly expand the breadth and scope of the mindmap with a few clicks.
You can even link to other mindmaps which allow you to replicate this functionality in a new mindmap that is linked to the existing mindmap.
So, I’d say a mindmap that includes notes, document links, and web links are key to taking a simple mindmap to a highly useful mindmap.
Chance Brown
The Mindmap Blog
The question is wrong!
There are no defining characteristics in a GREAT map.
The map is great if it works for you! If you can do the workpakages you want to do, then the map is great. If you can reach your target using your map, then it is great.
So don’t think about level depth, included links, pics and icons, only think about what you want to do with your map. Then it will always fit do your needs.
I have and I saw different maps. Maped in different ways for different needs and they all are great, because they work.
This question is one of the biggest challenges to all mapping software tools, because they never will tell you how to do it, or how to map. You have to know it by yourself. Keep on mapping!
Kind regards
Andreas Lercher
For me a great software mind map should convey the information in the mind map as simply and as neatly as possible. The mind map can do this by using the following :-
* A great image or keyword to enacapsulate the idea or thought behind the mind map.
* By using sensibly grouped and sorted basic ordering ideas to keep ideas and thoughts together.
* Employs colours to group or differentiate branches. Colour also makes the map more eye-catching and interesting to read.
* Uses associations to link grouped ideas that do not appear under the same branch.
* With each level of branches, the mind map should display an even amount of information. If we display too much information on one branch, the mind map becomes weighted towards that branch and we lose the overall focus of the branch.
As a final point, the features employed in today’s mind mapping tools, can be used in all mind maps. So any software produced mind map has the potential to be a great mind map!
In my view, the only qualification for a good mind map is that it is useful. Some of my maps have simple words, some have full thoughts. Some have one central topic, some have many related central topics. Some have color, some are done with a #2 pencil. If the map is intended to be used by or with another person, I might apply other criteria. However, the most important criteria is still that it serves it’s purpose.
That it does the job:
- Communicates a message (as in many of the comments above)
- Transforms into a web site, presentation, book, quotation, requirements
- Manages a project
- Stores knowledge which can be easily accessed
- Fits and can be read on the screen or page its intended for
It must work for the audience or the team or individual using it.
I agree with all the “technical” points above and would like to add a slightly left field slant.
For a mind map to be “great” it has to work on all levels – i.e. to stimulate the conscious mind and embed itself in the unconscious mind and your cellular neurology, and that of the “readers”.
For this reason, it needs to not only be clear but at the time it was generated, the mind mapper also needs clarity in their thinking. If they are in touch with their innate creativity and not running negative emotions at the time, this energy will get embedded in the map too.
It’s all about the intent …
I agree with Steve, an excellent mind mapping software must be exportable to other formats.
I often export to Word or PPT as this allows me to present my research report maps in a way that meets my client needs and expectations.
Software produced MindMaps should be flexible enough to display what you want either on screen via some type of filtering, or on paper, via some type of selective printing. I have some large MindMaps that I only use portions of at a time. The rest becomes “history” material that may be needed at a future time. I need the ability to view or print only the current information and not the history. Most of the MindMap software packages are severly laking in flexibility for printing.
One of the great features of Mindmaps is the ability to present an outline of an involved subject in one image. This means the depth can be presented or represented and the main items remain in a central position for presentation purposes. An outline by itself can do all the same things, but when the detail extends to more than one page the presentation main items (outline headings) get spread over several pages, and the overview goes away. The mind map presents a unifying image of the focus. The details flavor or color the image.
A software produced mindmap should (should avoid shortcomings of mindmanager)
- reposition itself in a well balanced image
-be able to be printed on A4, A3 or A2 in a readable way
I am not sure in reading the comments thus far and going back to the question for this forum , as to whether the question is directed to the technical aspects of the software (such as features) or whether it is directed to the benefits which is. in my opinion, impacted by the ability of the user to develop a mind map?
New Ideas is in the stages of integrating the use of mind mapping into its methodology used to develop industrial training programs. So I am taking an approach of what I am looking for with respect to the technical feature(s) I would like to see in a mind map software package .These features are:
*Exporting to PowerPoint and/or to word in outline form…. and…. when making changes to the power point presentation or the word outline they can be automatically integrated back into the initial mind map.
*Ability to download a mind map to online status and allow authorized users to make changes or additions to the initial mind map without having to install software from the publisher of the mind map. Key is what defines multi-user’s and the license/cost associated with this capability.
(In my current stage of evaluating mindmapping software packages, NovaMind has just announced a connection package (NovaMindConnect) that is intriguing. Has anyone had any experience with this program?
*Support for Brainstorming sessions by providing floating subjects: It appears, in my evaluations thus far, several provide the ability to insert a floating child however, when moving an independent floating child to a different position, the software has a tendency to automatically attach the floater to a branch that is passed while moving the floater. To change it back to a floater is, if not difficult, impossible
*The ability to develop and display more than one indepent/exandable mind map on the same map.
*Feature as outlined by Jim Carter’s comment on 9/15
*Ease of using an expandable/collapsible mind map as a visual to the contents of a webpage/website. This coincides with the online feature mentioned above.
*The ability to merge Mind map revision A,B, etc into the initial mind map and automatically highlight and or identify the change to the initial map (child and/or branch) with where the change cam from.
*The compatibility of the mind map software package with LMS (Learning Management Systems) software that is currently available.
Ron Whistler
New Ideas, Inc.
I think Andrew hit the nail on the head when he said:
“That it does the job”
I’d add to that and say “that it does the job….in the best possible way”
Buzan’s rules on Mind Mapping are there for valid reasons (just read any of his books to find out what they are) and the more aligned the process is to those guidelines, then the better the tool will work (based on my experience anyway) and so by definition the “better” a Mind Map is.
Of course software generated maps don’t strictly adhere to those rules (even iMindMap doesn’t – although it comes pretty close) so Andrew’s statement is even more relevant.
So always have in the back of your mind that it is the result you are after and not the production of the map (unless of course you are creating a Mind Map for Mind Mapping’s sake)
Most of the things I’d mention have already been said by previous posters. I think Andreas Lercher is totally right – a great mind map is defined by it’s abilaity to fit the users needs the best it can and nothing more. All individuals have different brain structures and therefore need different methods to store/record information so their brain can handle it most effectively.
Of course there are some rules which for example Tony Buzan, the inventor of the mind-mapping technique has pointed out in some of his books that work with all our brains, like using colors, emphasizing information, grouping information (clustering it) or using simple, readable fonts. I think every user of mind maps who wants to make the most out of it has to understand at least the basic principles of how our brain works and deals with information.
It is important because most of us have been very heavy left-brain-users just because we haven’t been tought to use the right side of our brain, too. This way, linear note-taking methods have been the kind of technique we were using most of the time. I think if we have had a more integral education in school, we would be able to understand these basic principles much more intuitively and we wouldn’t need people to help us remember how to use our brain more effectively, we’d just do it! (which is a very intuitive and therefore right-brained kind of thinking which, I know, most of us are not very used to, but we should give it a try!)
I think mind mapping is a very intuitive kind of thing and maybe we shouldn’t think so much about how to make our mind map most usable or beautiful and if we have taken every rule into account and so on. After all I have experienced I always tended to think way too much about how I should do a mind map than to just do it and begin taking notes. HOW to do it will then come to you in a more subconscious way and we don’t have to think about it very much.
- Peter Hofmann
It all depends.
I use MM’s for at least 3 purposes:
Brainstorming
Collaboration
Note-taking
Generally that means I don’t much care about colors and images but do occasionally use them.
I have used them on projectors to group discussion, even to introduce peole to one another.
I have used them to collaborate in brainstorming and planning.
I have developed templates for biblical study of texts.
I offer my students the choice of outlining textbook chapters or mindmapping them.
Generally I want to keep it simple, so clouds, etc. have little appeal.
A map that has the ability to change fonts and colors and insert pictures to make the map come alive.
A great mindmap makes other people wish they had made their presentation in mindmap form too.
A great mindmap ignores Buzan’s ridiculous rules regarding using different colored pens, radial organization and single word branches and creates it’s own rules that best support the author’s intention. (Anal retentiveness and creativity rarely play well together.)
A great mindmap has a personal style that can be quickly recognized by others. (Artists develop personalized visual vocabularies that make their work recognizable — why not mindmappers?)
A great mindmap shows the mindmapping community a new way to use the technique. (How many maps have you seen that make you say “Hey, I’m going to try THAT in my next map?”)
A great mindmap transcends the software it was created with or the paper it was drawn on. (If the ideas are clear and the arrangement creates an innovative understanding, it could be drawn on the back of a stained napkin)
A great mindmap dares to take on subjects that go beyond to-do lists, outlines for whitepapers and project management flow charts. (Meaning of life anyone? How about comparative World religious beliefs? Where are the great philosophers and conceptual thinkers of our day who are expressing themselves through mindmaps? How about a map with the concept of “good” on one side and “evil” on the other with related idea branches reaching toward one another and connecting in a center full of gray area concepts like “mercy killing” and “Bank bailouts”)
A great mindmap cares about design — clip art, starbursts and other cheesy visual elements need not apply. (Yeah, I’m talking to YOU dudes who develop mindmapping software icon libraries! How about making a deal with photos.com to allow unrestricted use of thumbnails from their extensive collection as visual elements? Maybe make a photoshop edition that integrates pro graphics tools for anyone who has the chops to create really cool stuff.)
A great mindmap makes a crappy powerpoint or word document — it loses its power if it is not seen as an interconnected whole.
A great mindmap tells your boss in one document that you are ready for the VP position more quickly than years of dressing smart and arriving for work early and leaving late ever will.
For me, I reckon the most important characteristic in a mind map (or an idea map) is where it will lead you to, in terms of exploring futher & beyond what you have already captured in it in the first place.
A mind map (or idea map) is a good starting point for capturing & organising the disparate information in a systematic manner for quick review.
Its real value [I call it ROI (return on ideas!)] will come only when it triggers spontaneous or even delayed reactions or responses from the interactions (or maybe, intersections) of your own knowledge & experiences with what you already captured on paper & on your computer.
That’s to say, what comes to your mind after reviewing or reflecting on the mind map (or idea map).
Or, what’s next?
Or, so what? . . . in which case, it’s time for you to evaluate & assess what’s good & new from your jottings in the mindmap (or idea map).
Or, what if . . .? . . . in which case, this becomes a springboard!
Capturing information with all the fancy colours & wonderful icon graphics or rich pictures on a map look good only on the surface, but as a mind mapper (or idea mapper), you are actually going no where, sorry to say that, until you can systematically derive new ideas or novel responses from it, to go to the next level.
Suffice to say, your competition out there can replicate exactly what you do in a map, maybe even better than you.
However, it’s your creative ingenuity & virtually limitless imagination in terms of sparking or getting new ideas or novel responses from the mental associations or juxtapositions that are triggered off from your subsequent readings or reflections from the map that ultimately make the difference. That’s your defining moment with a mindmap or idea map.
The moment of truth, so to speak.
In reality, a mind map or idea map is absolutely useless, unless it can add value to your thinking exploration, & your thinking must start the moment you have finished drawing it up.
From what I have read, Leonardo da vinci, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison & other geniuses often use visual jottings to spur new thinking . . . new ideas!
Say Keng Lee, from Singapore!
Fabulous responses to an excellent question! I don’t have much to add — just one thing, to piggyback on the point that a great mind map must accomplish its purpose.
Too often, I’ve seen mind maps that were created for one person’s own process, and then later shared with the general public (as a bonus with an information product that’s being sold, for example). This presents a problem: the mind map has little meaning for others unless it’s explained by the person who created it. It wasn’t originally designed for collaboration, or with the intent of communicating the concepts to others. So repurposing it after the fact makes it useless or worse: it can be just plain confusing and a waste of time for the person trying to figure it out.
On the other hand, a mind map that’s created with the purpose of sharing info with others can be more powerful than almost any other method, short of multimedia. Hey, are there animated mind maps on video out there? I would like to see that kind of thing explored more. I guess I’ll have to try it myself!
Thanks for the conversation.
Liz
Further to my earlier response, I want to add this comment:
In reality, a good mind map or idea map, to serve its true purpose, must always spur the mapper to action!
To move on with the information captured & the new ideas generated, so that the mapper can assimilate them into new definitive actions & useful real-world experiences.
Albert Einstein said it so eloquently:
“Knowledge is experience. Everything else is just information.”
Say Keng Lee, from Singapore
The best map is no map. To me a software-produced mind map is a paradox. How can personal thouhts be captured in a frame? A mind map must be the result of personal brain links and not the result of a template. A template restricts me in personal style and speed (sketching ideas). So sorry Chuck, I prefer making mind maps on ‘the backside of a napkin’; this allows me to make errors and create an atmosphere for serendipity. If your software-produced mind map can do this, than you are on the right track.
It’s good to see such a lively debate on what defines a great mind map. I’ve just short listed a few of the above comments. In some cases I have shortened or rephrased lengthy comments.
A great mind map ..
.. condenses large amounts of information.
.. has multiple levels of depth.
.. links to other documents and urls.
.. conveys information in the simplest manner.
.. is useful!
.. has to work on all levels.
.. does the job, in the best possible way.
.. inspires others to create their own representation of a topic.
.. showcases personal style.
.. explores beyond itself.
.. spurs the mind mapper to action.
[...] Frey asked yesterday—How do you define a great mind map? – Mind Mapping Software Blog—while commenters were talking about lots of difference great things about mind maps, my number [...]
[...] Mindmappers from all over the world are responding to the question. Take a look and see what these mindmappers have to say (and if you are so inclined, add your own perspective to the dialogue). Click Here. [...]
Hello Chuck,
You often ask thought-provoking questions, but I do feel this one is hard to answer usefully with so little context. We have to make assumptions, and different people have made different ones in all the answers above. But readers can’t always see what the assumptions were.
Who is the map for? … For me? For a specific group? For the whole world?
Why am I making this? … To learn? To take notes? To get new ideas? To organize the thoughts I already have? To present? To plan a project? To manage a project? To organize shed-loads of information?
How am I making the map? … In a meeting on my own laptop? In a meeting where everyone can see the map? By myself?
Different answers to these questions would affect what’s “great”.
I was surprised to see so little mention of ‘Mind mapping – the Process’ in the answers. A mind map would be a great one for me if while making it I had that “Aha!” moment, that mind mapping often brings. I would use the mind map itself later, but the process is what counts more often than not.
I treat mind maps mostly as very personal – to meet my needs only. Which means I agree with Andreas – it’s good if it accomplishes what I want. It’s great if it goes beyond that and takes me into new areas that are useful and relevant. But if I’m developing it with others in a meeting, then clarity and focused relevance – that and all participants being able to act on it – are needed to make it great.
Vic Gee
One more comment in light of Andreas post (I like it!)
Let the (human) creator of map to response himself for resultat.
The software is not need to be “smarter” than user of the software…
“Smart” hard restrictions on creating the map are just frustating the creator
- and this is not the best solution to be “Great software product”.
Maybe 99% of such software “restrictions” are correct for “standard” thinking, but
mindmapping is using for “nonstandard” thinking too…
One example of such software “restrictions” is refusing to drag-and-drop
of mindmap node freely at the whole mindmap “working area”.
Kind regards
Toomas Arula
Great question!
I use mind maps mostly for integrating information from various sources on a topic, e.g. project management PMBOK. So, a GREAT mindmap for THIS purpose, would be one that:
* Allows me to integrate/relate points on a topic from diverse sources
* Has a consistent structure & elements, in terms of layout, icons, graphics, etc. so that the reader knows what to expect as they study the map.
* Allows for some customization and tayloring to the individual
*Allows for some growth. the day after the map is published, it might be out of date. So we should have some mechanism for updating it.
I believe it has been mentioned already, but for me the only thing that defines a great map is one that totally fulfills the purpose for which it was created.
Chuck,
Thanks for this opportunity.
As others have indicated, a mind map is primarily an aid for an individual mind so it needs to facilitate the thinking of its creator.
In addition, a mind map can help explain that thinking and the resultant plan and actions to others.
Accordingly, software to help achieve these purposes would need to come in different forms for each purpose.
The common thread in all forms could be a tool to help the user integrate Critical Thinking and Integrative Thinking and cover the strategy, tactics, action, review and evaluation stages of problem-solving ( negotiating the change from what one has to what one wants). Would you believe I offer just such a tool on my website?
A map-mind on its own is great if
a) it is easy to read and pleasing to the eye.
b) flows naturally. From broad to specific. From high priority to low priority. In forward or backward time sequence.
Sorry. Last message was not completed when I accidentally submitted it.
There is no great mind map but a better mind map. One should go on improving our maps.
If we have an article or a book, we can get different people to draw the mind map about the article. The better mind maps are the ones who are simpler in structure (in nodes, depths, topic text) and yet convey more.
We can do mind-mapping improvement on our own map as well. I tend to start with very wordy and complex maps at first. After much thinking, I could simplify them and yet not loosing any knowledge. In fact, by re-organizing, we get to know our subject matter better and even discover new knowledge.
Reading the interesting discussion inputs, I cannot help thinking that; 1) one has to use a lot of words to describe the elegant functionality of mindmaps and 2) why can´t we have a discussion using mindmapping. It is a contradiction in terms to discuss grafic, processual relationship using words.
A GREAT mindmap is as has been stated one that serves the purpose. My best mindmaps over the last 20 years have been on the backs of envelopes because they stimulated ideas in conversations and could easily show and group relationships from mulitple legs generating additional ideas. This feature of being able to create “clouds” of ideas from muliple legs and using them to generate addional ideas is easy on paper but I have never seen it in any software product.
A good mindmap is one that
1. serves the purpose for which it was created
2. allows the author to discover some new link that s/he might not otherwise have considered
For me, a key word here is “intuitive”. The software should make the on-screen mind mapping process as intuitive as possible. Using the software should actually make mind mapping easier as well as enhancing the visual quality and usefulness of the finished result. The software should not hinder creativity by being too intrusive (distracting the author from the reason for creating the mind map in the first place and/or the task of producing it) or by being frustratingly restrictive in its practical functioning and/or lack of features. To qualify as “excellent”, the mind map itself should also be intuitive for its intended viewer(s) and user(s) to understand. At this point in time, that’s still something that’s squarely down to the author, however sophisticated the technology may be!
I’m an SAP project manager and I’ve attempted over the years to adopt certain project methodologies to mind maps. Up to now, this has centered on ASAP which is an SAP implementation methodology. Recently, it has begun morphing / evolving into something a bit different, so I’d like to take that tool and map it’s constructs.
One of the biggest complaints I have about mind mapping is that I don’t want to lay things out in two dimensions, and unfortunately, in the physical world, computer screens are 2-D. Sure, we can build overlays and links, etc., but I need to be able to see multidimensional relationships not only in a current SAP project, but examine and discover relationships from both past and ongoing projects, as well.
To accomplish this, we’ll need a relational database of some sort and access to mapping tools that allow me to query project details to formulate, “mine” (as in a data mining), develop and visualize new insights from these previously undiscovered relationships.
So, in a summarized version, that’s what I’d like to see!
As Jamie said in #33, I believe it has been mentioned already, but for me the only thing that defines a great map is one that totally fulfills the purpose for which it was created. I would add that the answer to “How do you define a great mind map? ” is not possible from a “universal” perspective. I have seen some of the Tony Buzan maps that IN MY OPINION ARE NOT READABLE! I bet he would disagree with me.
The real question is, How many different type of applications are there for mind mapping? That too is an open ended question but should generate more useful responses. For me (as an individual) I find brain storming #1 and research management #2 + dozens or others. Would be interesting to hear from the community.
Bob Levy
Here’s an easy way to judge whether a map is a “great” map: does it deliver your key message when only the first level of topics are visible? If it can do this, then expanding it will only make things better. If it doesn’t do this, then the bigger it gets, the worse it gets.
Nick Duffill
A great mind map:
Is simple to navgiate and contains the right amount of information
Is visually appealing
Evokes an emotional tie with its audience right off the bat (aka. has something the reader can relate to/identify with)
Is easy to to collaborate within
Is easy to share
A great mind map is often said as “in the eye of the beholder”. if it captures the story and enables you to draw new insights, feel more comfortable and want to go back and refer to it, then it has done the job. The tough job is making it ‘great’ for others to relate too and that is the REAL challenge
Having just finished my first reading of Edward de Bono’s Six Frames, I’ll overlay my thoughts about what makes a “great” map on the concepts he suggests. A great map’s purpose is clearly evident for its intended audience. It is accurate in the information it portrays and where needed articulates its sources or references. Bias is either eliminated or conflicting points of view are presented fairly. New and interesting points are introduced and produce some “a ha” illuminating moments. Users see the value in the map and can have productive discussions based on it, leading to consensus and eventually appropriate action.
[...] In a recent post on “The Mind Mapping Software Blog”, Chuck Frey asked, what defines a great mind map? [...]
[...] I asked the readers of this blog to share their thoughts and insights into what makes a great mind map. The response was amazing – over 40 comments were submitted during the last three weeks. Thank [...]
[...] few weeks ago Chuck Frey of the mind mapping software blog asked people to share their thoughts on how they would define a great mind map. There were many insightful comments that covered a wide spectrum of what makes a great mind map. [...]
I think Liz hit the nail on the head perfectly when she replied:
“…a mind map that’s created with the purpose of sharing info with others can be more powerful than almost any other method, short of multimedia.”
Although video is the enthusiasm per day, videos without context are limited. Short, videos excel at helping you master specific tasks, but nothing can beat the context (i.e., hierarchy and sequence) that a mind map communicates at a glance.
Roger
[...] 5. How do you define a great mind map? [...]