Tree structures with creative appeal

D. Grey explains concept maps vs. mind maps and shows examples. As often, I find the mind map more appealing and creatively stimulating than the other example, although it is a restricted tree structure while the other is a more sophisticated top-down graph and is much more like the visualizations that I often make for myself to help me remember some relationships.

I wanted to find out what makes the difference. Therefore I transformed someone else’s mind map into the top-down style I am used to while otherwise trying to conserve as much of the properties as possible. The top left image is from M. Böttger’s German blog post about complexity, and the top right one is my transformation. Then I watched the transition.

Click for details

Where does the appeal disappear? I am still not sure, but I guess it is at the bottom row where the star form of the hierarchy changes to the top-down hierarchy, where the radial “wheel” is reduced to top-down spokes or “legs” (reversing the invention of the wheel…).

The right-hand form is IMO more adequate for remembering relationships, while the left-hand form is more adequate during the creative phase. Measuring it by Boettger distance along the communication space continuum, the mind map has less distance (from the brain), i. e., is farther left on her picture.

This entry was posted in Visualization. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s