[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] GZigZag and education?

Hi Kimmo!

Kimmo Kristian Wideroos wrote:
> I agree, there is a gap between the "monologue" writing tool and a
> collaborative one. However, if we added a simple feedback possibility,
> the gap could be narrowed. For instance, let all contributions (notes,
> links and substructures) to be 'evaluable' by different users (do I
> understand {no, maybe, yes}, do I agree {no, don't care, yes}).
> Above all could be a Search -view that could be used to find, for example,
> all notes written by me and not been understand properly by the
> others. Or, one could search for all such notes and links that he has not
> understood properly BUT which have been modified recently (possible
> new explanations). This kind of tool could be used at least as a
> assosiative notice board, but also as collaborative writing tool.

Does sound interesting.

> > (OTOH again, the collaborative environment *does* fit with the
> > educational goals of my school's founder, as I see them, so maybe I
> > could get someone to work with it... dunno.)
> >
> > As to your proposal, I was wondering: wouldn't a mind-map structure
> > (i.e., text is on the connecting lines) be better? I mean, the mind-map
> > people are against connected boxes because they're "disassociative," the
> > eye does not move between them as easily, and I think they have a point.
> > A mind-map where you can move between the elements, where you can put
> > any element in the middle, would be a very interesting structure, I
> > should think. Make sense?
> Generally, the map is 'locally euclidean,
> globally paradoxal' as is the zz-metastructure. I was thinking that
> the 'substructures' or 'perspectives' (made up of a collection of
> links) build up a meaningful "skeleton" of the structure. The map
> should be navigable as you stated. Maybe it could useful for the system to
> support also categories (for example: [element/note] A belongs to the
> [category] PROJECT_1 and [categ.] PROJECT_2, [elem./note] B belongs to the
> PROJECT_2). Thus, binary operations could be useful for these
> categories and also for substructures, which in turn are special cases of
> categories. In fact, substructures and perspectives could then be
> described by using categories and links.

That sounds exactly like what I was assuming you're talking about. ;-)
(By the way, speaking of not liking: I do not like labels in all caps
and spaces replaced by underscores at all... they look "computerish."
'First project' and 'second project' make more sense to me. Anyways.)

> Personally, I don't like (official) mind maps. As far I know, Tony Buzan's
> (the guy who has patented mind map) intention was to design a new way to
> take notes (for example lecture notes). So, my opinion is that mind map is
> made to be excellent for recording lectures.
> I found the following definition for the mindmap. As you see, mind map
> philosophy is based on hierarchies ... too bad, restricted

I think the limitations of the mind map you've mentioned are simply
rooted in the restrictions of paper. The mind map people actually
encourage connecting leafs of the mind map which have some relationship;
I think it's just the nature of paper that has stopped them from
developing something more advanced. But let's not argue about mind maps.
The point I was trying to make is that boxes don't help associative
thinking, and that we'd better put the words on the connective lines.
The algorithm I have in mind is something like this:

* Draw the accursed concept in the middle.
* Draw all the concepts connected to it on lines around it. (Let these
lines start from the middle and point to the boundaries of the screen.)
The end of the line connected to the concept in the middle call the
"beginning" of the line; the other end call the "end." (This
directedness is not visible, just an internal concept.)
* For each of these lines:
  - Find all concepts connected to the one on this line.
  - Draw them on own lines starting from the end of this line...
  - ...except for the concept which connected to this one.
* Repeat.
* If you ever find the same concept twice (i.e., if there's some loop),
draw it only once and connect both connections to it. (This may be
changed by user preference, so that a concept found twice is shown on
the screen two times -- like there should be a similar preference in the
vanishing etc. views.)

Some properties of the mind-map I'd like to see in this are:
* Beauty. Good mind maps have soft curves and look "smooth," "natural" etc.
* (Associative) connectivity, not separation in boxes.
* Annotation. In mind maps, you draw symbols etc. next to mind-map stems
to communicate additional information. (In fact, that is what gzz
applitude interconnectivity will give us automatically.)

> Because mind map obviously has some bad inherent connotations, shouldn't
> we invent a new name for rich, assosiative, rootless, zigzag based
> hmmm... map. How about 'CLUEMAP' ;)

To me, mind map has (as you might have guessed ;o}) more positive
connotations, but if it's so different for others, we should drop the
name. I'm not sure about 'cluemap', though... don't really like it.
Well, using 'map' does make sense... 'Notemap' sounds better to me...

- Benja