Last preview 1.5.1_05 has 4 different hexahon shapes. I find it confusing and I would like to keep only the shapes you need. Please tell me which shapes are needed for you.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I think it would be wonderful be able to have this additional shapes for ROOT nodes, maybe other people will think about using it for other nodes, I just don't advice for pedagogy reason like losing screen space and stressing the brain where is not needed just as is shown in this video https://youtu.be/ARWmnmfEnxI
And this shapes that I'm attaching here are symmetric shapes, it will help the brain to process information and knowledge faster and easier.
Always working in that line of just setting really needed information, stimulating the Brain with trigger words, being able to fit as much information as we can in the screen with a standard that save screen space and being accessible for beginner users and the future users that are about to start using this wonderful tool.
And old users and Expert users are able to just open “Styles Management Dialog”, “Properties Panel” or “Preferences” and set any configuration they need.
Sometimes I see users request that can be solved by just changing configurations.
Set different shapes with different background colors for the root node is a great way for handling knowledge.
I personally think we should keep all the new node shapes. The new hexagon shapes are very nice; I don't think they are confusing at all. I don't agree that they are useful only for root nodes; from what I know of Neuroscience (not much, I confess), I can say they are extremelly usefull for all kind of nodes, not just root nodes. So Dimitry, please keep all the new node shapes.
Last edit: Carlos 2015-11-25
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
+1 for carlos opinion
I will use different shapes as a way to "tag" different nodes that are
somewhat related, so for me the more the better. For people that will not
make use of them, they are not enforced in any way, so I dont think they
will molest.
El 25/11/2015 15:03, "Miguel Boyer" pilominco@users.sf.net escribió:
I support Carlos view. More options is good, provided there is no drawback
in terms of efficiency.
I just recorded a video to show the Scientific approach about the different node shapes.
Is grounded in 11 years research with Experimenting with sampling public (I don't know if this name make sense in english) psychopedagogy, Neuroscience, Mind Maps, IT Solutions and reading techniques.
The only goal that we have is find way to make the process of knowledge easier and faster with get emotionally attached with any idea, we are scientists ..
And for sura that as more options users has as better it would be and also set the best standard so the new users can use the software in the best way and also to avoid them starting using it not the the best performance way cos when it happens there is just 2 possible futures, 1: Get used and attached with this not best way for using it and then never being able to try better ways, and 2: Unlearn (like Forget) the not most efficient way and the get used with the advisable way.
I really like to see peoples idea and then try to find if there is any scientific grounding behind it.
Like the idea Bal Simon gave in other forum discussion topic, I guess that I saind something about it in this video.
Hi, Jonas. Right now I'm very busy, but I'll just leave a brief comment.
There is compelling evidence that the use of different shapes (and different colors) can be useful for helping memorization. For instance, when we associate certain colors and shapes to different contents, our brain can recall those contents much more easily. In other words, shapes and colours have the potential to increase chances of information to be encoded, stored, and retrieved successfully.
Thank you for the new shapes. They have been a nice surprise. I also think we should have as many shapes/options as possible provided they don't hinder performance.
From what I understand, the small & wide options depend on the top&bottom margins. So, for a more compact display of the new options, the Bubble Margin preference, which was presented as an option in the Preferences > Appearance tab of one of the previous alphas may be converted to a Shape Margin preference to be utilized and improved so as to have it as a per-node setting as well.
The application wide preference would serve as a default for maps & nodes without an explicitly set top&bottom margin. Per node margin setting in the Format panel would allow for shape variation and fine-tuning of the maps:
Margin=0 would create what is now called a 'Small Buble'
Margin=20 would create a very big bubble (almost a round rectangle - see the attached image).
One can create a number of varied styles using this method and save them as styles for repeated use. This way, we can have these distinct shapes:
Fork
Bubble
Oval
Circle
Hexagon
Narrow Hexagon (I had to add this as it seems to have been created by rotating the Hexagon by 90 degrees.)
And the variations of these styles (listed below) found in the current set of shapes can be recreated without crowding the Node shape combo box:
Small Bubble
Small Oval (This seems to be the default 'Oval' shape now, however there were Big Oval and Small Oval options in the previous iterations and honestly Big Oval was much better than the current implementation)
Wide Hexagon
Small Hexagon
The functionalities are the same and the combo box is compact (leaving room for other different shapes like squares, diamonds, etc. :))
This, I think, provides a more compact and understandable set of options without losing the new nice functionalities. So, if possible, just add a Top&Bottom margin option on a per node basis (Just like the Child Gap option)
I am attaching a screenshot of the previous alpha with the mentioned Bubble Margin setting (set at 50 px) and a small mock-up of Properties panel with suggested modifications.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you everyone contributed to discussion. It looks like the majority wants to keep all different shapes to have more diversity, alghough Jonas mentioned that he finds different shapes for regular nodes can make maps more difficult to read and memorize. Therefore all shapes are kept.
Because want that all shapes look the same way everywhere I am not allow to configure their parameters in user settings and give more choices instead.
New preview version 1.5.1_06 has got a new shape preliminary called "hexagon2" .
The idea is that shapes circle, hexagon and hexagon 2 look perfectly symmetric (like a circle or a regular hexagon). Difference between hexagon and hexagon2 is in their rotational position. I am sorry I could not find a better name, so I hope you help me to find better names for each hexagon shape.
Regards,
Dimitry
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Dimitry, please reconsider this. Currently, there are are 5 'hexagon' shapes versus only one (small) 'oval' shape and no 'square' or 'rectangle' for instance. This is not consistent - why the big emphasis on hexagons and little love for ovals (only 1 shape) and none for diamonds or squares :)) A 'shape margin' setting could easily provide a 'big oval' (which was present in the earlier alpha but removed in the latest versions), or other shapes; without complicating the menus too much. Contrary to what you are concerned here;
Because want that all shapes look the same way everywhere I am not allow to configure their parameters in user settings and give more choices instead.
having a node shape (top&bottom) margin setting would not prevent the uniformity of the map appearance, but rather encourage it (provided we have a default setting in the preferences in addition to the per node setting). Think of the new 'Child Gap' setting; it's true that it has a lesser impact on the appearance than the shapes, but the mentality is the same. A shape margin coulld operate in the same manner.
For the most variety of options with the least crowded menu, Oisín Mac Fhearaí's idea may also be added:
"number of sides" property for each node
So that we could add squares, rectangles, triangles, etc. to Freeplane. These two options together (shape margins and number of sides) would make the ultimate combo for node shapes in Freeplane. Think of it:))
Nevertheless, after so much idea promotion, which I highly doubt would be ever realized, I ask you please at least bring back the so called 'Big Oval'. The current (small) oval shape is claustrophic and makes me squint somehow, to read the node content (even though I use the same font. One more thing -- could you please add 'square' and 'rectangle's (small and wide, according to the current nomenclature) to the set of shapes (pleease:))? Thanks.
Cheers,
Aycae
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Last preview 1.5.1_05 has 4 different hexahon shapes. I find it confusing and I would like to keep only the shapes you need. Please tell me which shapes are needed for you.
Hey Dimitry,
I think it would be wonderful be able to have this additional shapes for ROOT nodes, maybe other people will think about using it for other nodes, I just don't advice for pedagogy reason like losing screen space and stressing the brain where is not needed just as is shown in this video
https://youtu.be/ARWmnmfEnxI
And this shapes that I'm attaching here are symmetric shapes, it will help the brain to process information and knowledge faster and easier.
Always working in that line of just setting really needed information, stimulating the Brain with trigger words, being able to fit as much information as we can in the screen with a standard that save screen space and being accessible for beginner users and the future users that are about to start using this wonderful tool.
And old users and Expert users are able to just open “Styles Management Dialog”, “Properties Panel” or “Preferences” and set any configuration they need.
Sometimes I see users request that can be solved by just changing configurations.
Set different shapes with different background colors for the root node is a great way for handling knowledge.
Cheers and Best Regards,
Jonas
I personally think we should keep all the new node shapes. The new hexagon shapes are very nice; I don't think they are confusing at all. I don't agree that they are useful only for root nodes; from what I know of Neuroscience (not much, I confess), I can say they are extremelly usefull for all kind of nodes, not just root nodes. So Dimitry, please keep all the new node shapes.
Last edit: Carlos 2015-11-25
I support Carlos view. More options is good, provided there is no drawback
in terms of efficiency.
+1 for carlos opinion
I will use different shapes as a way to "tag" different nodes that are
somewhat related, so for me the more the better. For people that will not
make use of them, they are not enforced in any way, so I dont think they
will molest.
El 25/11/2015 15:03, "Miguel Boyer" pilominco@users.sf.net escribió:
I just recorded a video to show the Scientific approach about the different node shapes.
Is grounded in 11 years research with Experimenting with sampling public (I don't know if this name make sense in english) psychopedagogy, Neuroscience, Mind Maps, IT Solutions and reading techniques.
The only goal that we have is find way to make the process of knowledge easier and faster with get emotionally attached with any idea, we are scientists ..
And for sura that as more options users has as better it would be and also set the best standard so the new users can use the software in the best way and also to avoid them starting using it not the the best performance way cos when it happens there is just 2 possible futures, 1: Get used and attached with this not best way for using it and then never being able to try better ways, and 2: Unlearn (like Forget) the not most efficient way and the get used with the advisable way.
I really like to see peoples idea and then try to find if there is any scientific grounding behind it.
Like the idea Bal Simon gave in other forum discussion topic, I guess that I saind something about it in this video.
So, here is a link for the video.
https://youtu.be/BJfMSzw7oPw
Cheers and Best Regards,
Jonas.
Hi, Jonas. Right now I'm very busy, but I'll just leave a brief comment.
There is compelling evidence that the use of different shapes (and different colors) can be useful for helping memorization. For instance, when we associate certain colors and shapes to different contents, our brain can recall those contents much more easily. In other words, shapes and colours have the potential to increase chances of information to be encoded, stored, and retrieved successfully.
A little off-topic: in your video you said that our brain should save energy in order to improve the learning process. But there is reasearch that found just the opposite: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11573666 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10089102/Hard-to-read-fonts-can-boost-pupil-results-by-up-to-a-fifth.html
https://hbr.org/2012/03/hard-to-read-fonts-promote-better-recall
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/health/19mind.html
Last edit: Carlos 2015-11-26
You can find different node styles on the properties panel.
Regards,
abc
Hello Dimitry & all,
Thank you for the new shapes. They have been a nice surprise. I also think we should have as many shapes/options as possible provided they don't hinder performance.
From what I understand, the small & wide options depend on the top&bottom margins. So, for a more compact display of the new options, the Bubble Margin preference, which was presented as an option in the
Preferences > Appearancetab of one of the previous alphas may be converted to a Shape Margin preference to be utilized and improved so as to have it as a per-node setting as well.The application wide preference would serve as a default for maps & nodes without an explicitly set top&bottom margin. Per node margin setting in the Format panel would allow for shape variation and fine-tuning of the maps:
Margin=0would create what is now called a 'Small Buble'Margin=20would create a very big bubble (almost a round rectangle - see the attached image).One can create a number of varied styles using this method and save them as styles for repeated use. This way, we can have these distinct shapes:
And the variations of these styles (listed below) found in the current set of shapes can be recreated without crowding the Node shape combo box:
The functionalities are the same and the combo box is compact (leaving room for other different shapes like squares, diamonds, etc. :))
This, I think, provides a more compact and understandable set of options without losing the new nice functionalities. So, if possible, just add a Top&Bottom margin option on a per node basis (Just like the Child Gap option)
I am attaching a screenshot of the previous alpha with the mentioned Bubble Margin setting (set at 50 px) and a small mock-up of Properties panel with suggested modifications.
Just my 2 cents.
Best
Aycae
Last edit: anatolica 2015-11-26
Thank you everyone contributed to discussion. It looks like the majority wants to keep all different shapes to have more diversity, alghough Jonas mentioned that he finds different shapes for regular nodes can make maps more difficult to read and memorize. Therefore all shapes are kept.
Because want that all shapes look the same way everywhere I am not allow to configure their parameters in user settings and give more choices instead.
New preview version 1.5.1_06 has got a new shape preliminary called "hexagon2" .
The idea is that shapes circle, hexagon and hexagon 2 look perfectly symmetric (like a circle or a regular hexagon). Difference between hexagon and hexagon2 is in their rotational position. I am sorry I could not find a better name, so I hope you help me to find better names for each hexagon shape.
Regards,
Dimitry
Hi Dimitry,
There is a tiny defect at the bottom angle of hexagon 2.
Dimitry, please reconsider this. Currently, there are are 5 'hexagon' shapes versus only one (small) 'oval' shape and no 'square' or 'rectangle' for instance. This is not consistent - why the big emphasis on hexagons and little love for ovals (only 1 shape) and none for diamonds or squares :)) A 'shape margin' setting could easily provide a 'big oval' (which was present in the earlier alpha but removed in the latest versions), or other shapes; without complicating the menus too much. Contrary to what you are concerned here;
having a node shape (top&bottom) margin setting would not prevent the uniformity of the map appearance, but rather encourage it (provided we have a default setting in the preferences in addition to the per node setting). Think of the new 'Child Gap' setting; it's true that it has a lesser impact on the appearance than the shapes, but the mentality is the same. A shape margin coulld operate in the same manner.
For the most variety of options with the least crowded menu, Oisín Mac Fhearaí's idea may also be added:
So that we could add squares, rectangles, triangles, etc. to Freeplane. These two options together (shape margins and number of sides) would make the ultimate combo for node shapes in Freeplane. Think of it:))
Nevertheless, after so much idea promotion, which I highly doubt would be ever realized, I ask you please at least bring back the so called 'Big Oval'. The current (small) oval shape is claustrophic and makes me squint somehow, to read the node content (even though I use the same font. One more thing -- could you please add 'square' and 'rectangle's (small and wide, according to the current nomenclature) to the set of shapes (pleease:))? Thanks.
Cheers,
Aycae