I made this mind map using NovaMind in order to summarize the laws of Mind Mapping. Those laws are inspired by Tony Buzan, the originator of the actual Mind Mapping approach. I could have added some tips but this map represent the common laws actually used by the majority of mind mappers. But, the question is : should we actualize the laws of Mind Mapping ? Mind Mapping Softwares and new directions like Mindscaping are putting in question the validity of the actually recognized laws.
Here are some of my suggestions :
- Use short blocks of text for adding quotes or short phrases
- Limit the number of main branches from about 4 to about 9, the limits of the working memory capacity
- Use clouds or background's zones in order to underline parts of the map
- Use circles, rectangles and simple geometric shapes for the titles of main branches
- Photos can be used instead of symbols
- Use floating topics, very carefully, to add special information
- Limit the number of colours you use
- Start the main branches lecture from the upper-left or from upper-right axe starting from the centre
- Use the Rule of thirds to positionate main branches, images and titles
Do you have suggestions ?
- Use short blocks of text for adding quotes or short phrases
- Limit the number of main branches from about 4 to about 9, the limits of the working memory capacity
- Use clouds or background's zones in order to underline parts of the map
- Use circles, rectangles and simple geometric shapes for the titles of main branches
- Photos can be used instead of symbols
- Use floating topics, very carefully, to add special information
- Limit the number of colours you use
- Start the main branches lecture from the upper-left or from upper-right axe starting from the centre
- Use the Rule of thirds to positionate main branches, images and titles
Do you have suggestions ?
Comments
Avid Mind Mapper on Twitter @catherinefranz
Remember guideline 8: "Develop your own personal style of mind maps". This is one that I obey rigorously!
What a mind mapper follows or ignores must depend on the task in hand, the circumstances, and above all the purpose of the map.
I set out my take on this based on some 35 years of mapping (pace Catherine, I know you can add ten years to that!) at the mind mapping wiki:
http://www.informationtamers.com/WikIT/index.php?title=Buzan%27s_mind_map_guidelines_in_practical_use
Roy
I would listen to Catherine and Roy; I do and it pays off to listen to seasoned professionals who have used the tools techniques and Mindset that moves beyond mere Mind mapping.
I classify myself as a “Visual mapper”, one who utilises the expansive tools, methods and Mindset of multiple graphical formats, that eventually evolves into “Knowledge mapping”. Take a look at TopicScape and you get the WOW effect as to what the human brain is capable of regarding knowledge management.
Great question Philippe, I look forward to more of you writing here.
Wallace Tait
www.visualmapper.blogspot.com
One note: when you're working with teams, it makes sense to formalize some rules (e.g. use colors consistently)! In team mapping, a common mapping language (colors, shapes, images, etc...) will accelerate comprehension, decision making, innovation, etc...
Great question. Have a great weekend everyone!
1) Mind mapping: strictly radiant format
2) Visual mapping: Multiple graphical formats with embedding functions
3) Knowledge mapping: All of the above with serious database functions that lead the user into the project management and Knowledge governance arena.
Does hand drawn mapping have relevance? You bet it does; I have never actually been a hand drawn mapper, but I have come to understand that the Buzan rules for Buzan Mind mapping are actually very relevant and useful for the strong foundation of the Genesis of effective evolution through the three mentioned arenas.
Just my thoughts :)