Monday, January 25, 2016

Better equipped to produce at optimum

Another thought blog by Visual Mapper

Better equipped to produce at optimum

The visual mapping knowledge manager of this part of the 21st century has the luxury of having access to a myriad of graphical tools and methodologies that infuse a forward thinking knowledge mindset: many of those graphical tools are awesome, some not so awesome.

This forward thinking mindset seems to place the knowledge manager in a position where she can indeed produce at optimum output regardless of arena of usage. The driver of this mindset? The absolute understanding of how knowledge, as an integral part of the information economy must be created with focus, managed effectively and reinvested as an improvement tool. That refers to the Information Economy spoken of in previous posts.

Producing at optimum, for me; seems to be a natural progression, development or evolution for the information handler who uses the tools and methods of mind to visual to knowledge mapping, thus developing themselves into the forward thinking knowledge manager.

But; recently I was given an insight from a colleague who is a notable professional knowledge manager. This insight? Well I was as usual encouraging my colleague of the merits of using the tools and methodologies of mind/visual mapping; that's what I do, I'm a visual mapper.

Now this colleague is a most visually expressive knowledge manager; but not at all interested in mind, visual mapping in general; PowerPoint (Nancy Duarte rules PP) and Photoshop (I use PS too) is her preferred tools for visualizing. And this got me started on a string of thoughts that challenged me to realize a few undeniable things about knowledge management, as a visual mapper.

  • Knowledge management is not reliant upon graphical formats whatsoever
  • Graphical frameworks can enhance but are not the core function of Knowledge management
  • Knowledge management seems to be a mindset independent of both linear/non linear formats

I developed a funky little method called T.A.P
  • T: tap into your thought processes by dumping your thoughts into a work space
  • A: arrange and add logic by grammar, spelling, grouping and associating
  • P: present in a format that suits your intended recipients

I shared this in a left >>> right visual map format. But this colleagues insight reinforced my thoughts that the mapped format wasn't the driver at all; it was the textual procedure that was the explanatory driver. I am however a Visual mapper realizing the visual mapping tool-box includes but isn't limited to mind mapping. So the framework is the carrier, regardless of format, and the textual procedure associated with process is the explanatory and/or motivational driver.

So as much as my knowledge manager colleague expressed a disinterest in mind mapping as a format, I believe we visual mappers must, with clarity, state the format is merely the carrier of contextual information (usable knowledge).

To me; this confirms a disconnect between the mind mapping arena and the wider visual mapping arenas. On one hand the mind mappers believe it's best to express information and knowledge within the mind map carrier, and on the other hand, the visual mappers use the myriad of (mostly) graphical frameworks as carriers of expressed data, information and knowledge.

So when I stated above that “Graphical frameworks can enhance but are not the core function of Knowledge management”, I don't want to seem to contradict my firm belief that Knowledge management is best contained within a graphical format when used within a relational database environment. See TheBrain and Topicscape as examples.

The myriad of tools and methods we use to reach that point of knowledge management may or may not be via graphical formats, but I firmly believe we eventually end up with the intrinsic need for data, information and knowledge to be contained within a graphical framework such as the examples referenced to.


More questions than answers for sure, but the nature of my recent blogs insists on asking you for your unique answers. I do continue to believe the knowledge manager of this part of the 21st century shall eventually end up with a database architecture graphical framework. And she is better equipped to produce at optimum while using and utilizing graphical database frameworks. How you get to that point is a journey either inside or outwith the visual mapping tool-box.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Create, Manage, Exchange

Another short thought blog by Visual Mapper

Create, Manage, Exchange

Okay: make sure you have Tylenol handy!

I made my point some time ago that every human is an information manager; that's an undeniable fact; surely we all know this eh. Some of us are good and some not so good. Maybe the word “handler” might best describe what we humans do with information. For the most part we handle loads of aggregated data; that is the assemblage of words, images and numbers and we end up with information.

Information may or may not be useful, based upon verified sources, validated for authenticity and then contextualized to solidify content. But often the contextualization is missed or willingly ignored and information fades away as mere instructions that are soon forgotten or become irrelevant due to lack of revisions (Maintenance).

However; contextualized information indeed becomes knowledge, and this knowledge (metaphorically) becomes a living entity, as it must move forward to life by being improved upon by means of continuous improvement.

Wow; how was that for being long winded? But I hope I'm clear enough.

When we progress through the Create, Manage, Exchange processes; we are naturally using and hopefully understanding the relevance of what information is (aggregated data) and the further relevance of contextualization and further realizing of knowledge.

Knowledge must be usable though, as it becomes absolutely useless (static) if it isn't used as an improvement tool. Knowledge management is the improvement tool, and when used to confirm and improve upon this contextualized information (Knowledge), we may begin to see, realize and implement this usable knowledge into what may be termed “The Information Economy”.

















For me: the tools, methods and mindsets associated with graphical visual knowledge mapping have provided me with platforms to utilize for my personal, academic and business models to be realized.

And the above mentioned Information Economy may or may not be to you, real or even imagined; but knowledge may eventually be monetized by the very tools you may use to create, manage and exchange information and usable knowledge.

The main focus at visualmapper.org has always been to openly share, discuss and debate the relevancy of graphical information/knowledge mapping/management.
And yes; I often repeat myself via the blogs, so as to make it so clear that knowledge is not the destination, it is indeed the journey. The journey for me and so many others has been super charged by our use of the tools and methodologies of mind, visual and knowledge mapping software and services.

So I hope you are motivated to seek out, adopt, adapt and improve upon graphical mapping platforms and models, that may infuse a mindset that accepts the possibility of monetizing your Information Economy driven by usable knowledge.


Oh my I do babble; don't I?

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Oh my: that desktop to cloud sync question again

Another short thought blog from Visual Mapper

Oh my: that desktop to cloud sync question again

Yes the enduring question indeed regarding the cloud. I recall years ago when I was deeply involved with QMS, and whilst being a regular contributor to a very notable Quality forum, I posited that very thought.

That thought being; can your data (regardless of type) be guaranteed with a security level that does not permit snooping agencies and hackers (they're the same are they not?) to sift your personal, academic and business data?

The owner and operator of that forum I was involved with stated: “here at this blog and indeed anywhere on the web, if you believe you have total privacy and security; you're delusional”.

But here we are quite a few years later and that statement resonates with me as I become more involved within my use of Visual mapping that has evolved into knowledge mapping, with a heavy bent on desktop to cloud sync usage.

I am naturally concerned; as I speak with, consult with and teach many about the virtues, strengths and future of having access to our own personal, academic and business graphical database product/service. And the database approach is now being more and more offered, not merely as a desktop product, but as a desktop to cloud sync subscription service.

Like many of my preferred mind/visual mapping products; they offer a cloud version of their desktop product. And for the most part they're pretty good even in their cloud editions. Yes of course; for most complex desktop products, it's rather difficult to take all of the functions and capabilities into a cloud edition (that's understandable).

I would say a few developers have merely offered a convenient access to a cloud brainstorming and viewing capability, and further misunderstanding the needs, wants and demands of those heading into the cloud sync world with their heavy data load requirements.

There's few other products such as www.comapping.com and www.thebrain.com that have successfully handled and offered a high data-load requirement by users of @50GB. But again I am wary of the quote above; can cloud sync service providers guarantee safe and secure spaces for our synced data?

The question has not been adequately answered by service providers, and yes snoopers and hackers are a reality. But who owns our data when it is synced, and what of proprietary knowledge that has a monetary value to it for personal, academic and business usage?

Oh yes; these are really hard questions that challenge our current and future use of the cloud as we are bombarded with this “Internet of Things” approach to how we are unwittingly being led into disregarding security of data, information and Knowledge.

What's your thoughts? Is it a real concern, or are we in an age where we've capitulated to complete openness via social media models, or are we just moving into a new era of open knowledge and the elimination of a capitalistic approach to ownership?


Yup I now need to go take a Tylenol too.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

There's really no need for more of the same

Another thought blog by Visual Mapper

There's really no need for more of the same

As I survey the landscape of what we call mind mapping software/services; I'm astounded as to the sameness of ALL the offerings to date. This sameness is a uniformity that has strangled, constrained and pigeon holed the Mind mapping arena as fringe.

I've harped on about this before, and so I don't wish to repeat myself unnecessarily but here I go again. Fringe has placed the mapping arena outside of the norm of accepted and permitted mindsets. And as much as the enthusiasts, developers, professional users and thought leaders use and expose the tools and methodologies; it's still fringe.

The answer may lie with the reality that we live in a capitalist business model for the most part and everyone has the right to capitalize upon opportunities for financial gain and capturing markets. But why the heck are we seeing a continuous flow of products that look just the same as the leading mainstream products and are undoubtedly plagiarized clones of the original leading developer.

The auto industry is a typically analogous with what we are seeing within the mapping arena. We see developers producing software that does the same as their competitors with very little variation. And thus price point is the capital gain for mere sales numbers.

Of course we've seen mergers and acquisitions over the years associated with a leading developer, but competing developers kill them with their parity of functions and capabilities and of course price point.

The format war was a pseudo war; with ALL competing products offering a read, import and even export to and from the (at that time) leading Mind map file format. But IMO this is even irrelevant to the furtherance of this arena. When the Xmind product, developed in China showed it became the probable dominant mind map file format; that definitely changed and shook up the mind/visual mapping developers world.

What we may see with the Internet of Things approach to visual information management, is the development of product that offers a wholistic approach to how we create, manage and exchange data, information and knowledge comfortably across a wide range of devices. Files and folders still rule.

Maybe we'll see a departure from the mold of the mind map and experience a shift towards a neutral graphical approach. I believe we have that already with a few notable products. And we must not forget the most noble attempt at infusing this approach by MindSystems (Australia) and the work of John England and team. Their AMODE product was a breath of fresh air to the arena that alas was a glimpse of the future for knowledge mapping that was sadly way too before its time. The failure of knowledge handlers to recognize that graphical framework was IMO an indication to the malaise that has infected the mind/visual mapping arena.

Yes of course; I just vented; AGAIN lol

As a knowledge mapper I always end up with resting at the place of most stability and of future potentials for the Information Economy. It is of course and undoubtedly a relational database approach, and yes; I harp on about this a lot and probably will until I'm told off again.

So the established mind mapping developers were successfully usurped by the price point of developers who basically cloned the functions and capabilities of the leading product, and in turn changed the affordability of mapping products. This may turn out to be the death of the leading products, or may force a creativity and innovation evolution that takes us in a direction we probably should have been on some years ago.


So please; no more of the same. We need innovation that transports us to a place where the needs and wants of the end user are listened to and acted upon. Mere mind mapping has had its day IMO, and we look to and deserve to have innovative developers who have tuned into what lies beyond.

Making your best presentation

Another thought blog by Visual Mapper

Making your best presentation


Presentations are for the most part tedious and stressful things; aren't they? No matter how good a communicator you are, presentations always seem to trip us up; Don't they?

Tedious because they always seem to take forever to layout what you actually want to convey to your audience, and stressful due to the amount of coffee or liquor you take to get you through the tedious part of the process. But all kidding aside, good presentations allude most of us.

For me, I've always had a problem taking the script of what I wish to say and convey it in a reasonable presentation. And even when I became a Mind/Visual mapper, it still seemed to allude me. Ah that place of good presentations; I've read loads of books on presenting a reasonable audience talk, but why the hell did I miss that nirvana like flow where we seem to visually present like a pro?

I guess the answer may be found in how we understand the spoken/written word and the visual associations we extrapolate. I noticed a gap (read chasm) between words and visuals, and that gap has for me been resolved (to a degree) by the range of graphical software products I have access to and use.

The radiant mind map layout, while really good at a personal use level, seems to be for the most part either inadequate or unacceptable to the majority of audiences in my experience. No matter my enthusiasm and deep passion for the mind map format, I just couldn't get ever enough buy-in from any audience outwith the religious like excitement from groups of mind mappers whom actually believe the whole world should be mind mapping.

I had to take a step outside the bubble of the mind mapping space and re-evaluate how I would create, manage and share (exchange) any presentation. Okay so my profile according to the Herman dominance measurement tool was just about 50/50 relating to linear and non linear, so I understood the need and use of both linear flowchart like graphics and radiant non linear like.

So what I did was to create my own little method for helping me, and ultimately helping many others to decide which format would be best presented. It's called the T.A.P method and you'll find it if you search through the Visual Mapper blog site. The great thing about this method is you really don't have to be a mind mapper or strictly linear thinker to use it.

Once you use T.A.P it leads you into taking another look at templates. Yup good old fashioned templates, and IMO Nancy Duarte basically cracked the code for ready made templates that cover almost any scenario for making awesome presentations. Nancy has written extensively on communication through the use of graphics; my favourite book was Slide:ology. I encourage you to go look at her excellent work.

Hey I've even looked at exporting disassembled mind maps into MS PowerPoint; yes PP still works even for the advanced Visual mapper like me. A contradiction for sure from a mind/visual/knowledge mapper, but beyond the use of mind/visual mapping we have this funky arena of knowledge mapping that seems to be, on face value, far removed from what we can accomplish with heavily graphical suits such as ConceptDraw Pro and others.

The question still remains though; how do we make our best presentations? And the answer must be; it's not down to any specific tool, but it might indeed be. I know many colleagues who use only one specific software for creating presentations, yet like me, many use a multitude of products to eventually arrive at a presentation. Of course I'll use T.A.P and I may even use one of Nancy Duarte's available templates. But maybe it's a shift in thought that produces a mindset of communication openness that in turn produces the insight of reasonable, good or even great presentations.



What's your thoughts? Do you use a single product or multiple? What are they; and what's the buy-in you've experienced.

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Mind Mapping as a change agent

Another thought blog by Visual Mapper

Mind Mapping as a change agent

Ever wondered what ever happened to those who seemed to have an insight experience when introduced to the most peculiar yet natural tool of mind mapping? Where are they now eh; and how have they progressed; or not?

I do that all the time, and have kept a few memories over the years that gives me perspective of how it continues to succeed and sometimes fail as a change agent for many.

It is and continues to be peculiar yet natural at the same time, almost like two sides of a coin. Peculiar; because it's just even as to this day not generally recognized as the first graphical tool we'd grab as a first choice for ideation and information mapping. Yet this odd radiant format seems to be a most natural format to begin the genesis of thought relating to how we may create, manage and even share data, information and knowledge.

I can give testament to the power that mind mapping has had in my personal, academic and business life, by how it has transformed the ways I have evolved through understanding procedure, process and system. The mind map has for me become a microcosm of how one may see the greater universe of knowledge and all of its curious, real and imagined synaptic links and potentials.

There is a mindfulness to mind mapping that IMO must be experienced to accept the potentials and probabilities associated with the genesis of a personal journey through understanding systematic thinking. For me; the mind map was the beginning and I have travelled through many dimensions of learning, understanding and implementations of the tools, methods and perceived mindsets of eventual knowledge mapping. Oh and I'm so confident we'll see more quantum leaps in mindfulness and technology that may indeed evolve us as knowledge mapping humans.

But those we share mind mapping with; what becomes of them? Well for the most part, my experience has offered me excellent news. I would say the 80/20 rule may best apply to a natural acceptance, adoption and successful implementation of the tool, methods and creation of a systematic thinking mindset for most. The 80% is an experiential number, yet more than likely a verifiable number if a proper statistical study were to be made. The other empirical 20% number indicates a failure rate that may be statistically verifiable too. But alas I do not have scientific evidence that would back any of my conjecture based statements; but the thing is, none of the mind mapping developers have either. Hmm!

Those who have successfully adopted and adapted mind mapping into their personal space report exponential increases in their comprehension, implementation and continuous improvement of their personal development, academics and business productivity. The experiential evidence is indeed empirical; yet there must be something to this experiential stuff, it just can't be merely imagined; can it?

There is a 20% reality check though; and for some the mind mapping tool has been a not so good experience. Again; in my experience; those who have had a negative experience with mind mapping are more than likely to be those who've come across zealots. Yeah you know those over zealot evangelists who almost believe you'll find salvation in and through the mind map. Hey I used to be a zealot; I actually believed the whole world should be mind mapping, and that if you didn't mind map; well I thought you may be in need of some help.

But the rub is; the one size fits all approach by mind mapping developers in particular, has ingrained the software mind mapping arena with a war, and that war has been the file format war. The battle for developers software to be chomping at the bit to win a race that really shouldn't be a race at all. So glad I said that.

The changes that occur within the mind of each and every user of the tools and methods of mind mapping are unique to every user. I speak to mind, information and knowledge mappers in many sectors of personal, academic and business work, and they all have their very unique and captivating stories to tell. The changes that are positive are just so inspiring to the point of giving you a gift of insight.

These successful mind mappers inevitably become visual mappers and ultimately become forward thinking knowledge handlers, mappers and managers. Then they have the knowledge, experience and mindfulness to be able to employ not just the mind map, but a multitude of graphical mapping tools that enable them to even monetize their knowledge processes. Now that's a whole other thought blog.

Those memories over the years that give me perspective? maybe sometime we'll sit down and have a nice drink and chat with each other about that. Wouldn't that be great?

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Format agnostic: What the ****?

Another short though blog by Visual Mapper

Format agnostic: What the ****?

In the early days of my, in particular, mind mapping exposure, I certainly wasn't “format agnostic”. My personal evolution through mind/visual/knowledge mapping gave me a glimpse of the potential for format agnostic. Yeah it's probably not even a real term or definition, and it may be a contradiction, but for the sake of this short thought blog, I'll say “it defines the state of the knowledge handler who's not constrained or reliant upon any particular creative and/or implementation formats”.

Mind mapping is included but not limited to the ever growing Visual mapping tool-box, and the knowledge management database approach just seems to ideally manage it all. But getting from that creative process, that may include innovation, appears to hold mind mapping as an ideal tool for the ideation processes that encompasses both creativity and innovation. So format agnostic doesn't cut it.

The ever growing tool-box of Visual mapping enables the visual thinker to grab a graphical tool that suits the thinking processes of the user/project requirements and consideration for the intended audience. So the knowledge handler isn't constrained by the use of any particular tool at all.

Okay; I'm outing myself as a wannabe format agnostic but; for me at the date of this blog there's only one product suite able to offer me the widest scope of tools that suits the visual mapping tool-box (somewhat) format agnostic approach. And that's ConceptDraw Pro. Outwith my use of many mind mapping products, PRO has consistently offered me a tool-box of formats I can use to create, manage and exchange ideation for a variety of projects.

And at the time of this blog I currently have no other product that can offer me the capabilities to “knowledge manage” in a database environment and easily sync to cloud my visual mapping work other than thebrain.com. Yes it does sound like another contradiction regarding format agnostic, but at this time I am not format agnostic when it comes to my knowledge management approach. TheBrain is and remains to be my desktop to cloud sync relational database choice.

So: maybe the definition has to change or evolve as we progress through the further development of many excellent tools that allow us to become somewhat non reliant on any one product format. But maybe my blithering here has opened up a realization for developers who've laser focused in only on their particular take of the mind mapping formats encompassed in their unique single file architecture.

Does a mind map hold the key to creativity and innovation as a one size fits all approach? IMO no. A dashboard approach is now becoming a little more presented by developers and maybe this is the way to go for that initial decision process of choosing a format that suits to begin graphically creating a project.

This short thought blog could become a tome of ideas and suggestions. I leave that to you to contribute.

So the question remains; does Format agnostic define the knowledge handler?

Friday, January 1, 2016

Mindfulness via Mind maps

Another short thought blog by Visual Mapper

Mindfulness via Mind maps

mind·ful·ness
ˈmīn(d)f(ə)lnəs/
noun
noun: mindfulness
  1. 1.
    the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something.
    "their mindfulness of the wider cinematic tradition"
  2. 2.
    a mental state achieved by focusing one's awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one's feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations, used as a therapeutic technique.
The definitions above may be as close as some get to experiencing being in that zone often equated with mindfulness, clarity, epiphany or even insight.

I like the word insight rather than mindfulness, but we apparently get to that insight through mindfulness anyways. So yes there's a process, just like everything in life.

Mindfulness (or insight) via Mind maps: is this something esoteric or hidden? Nope; it can be though for some, and I have a few friends and colleagues who are very into that way of thinking in association with Mind maps.

[A word about Esoteric: to me it's merely a word that defines something that is hidden or may be hidden in clear sight; for me it's not the Hollywood conspiracy BS version.]

Me? I'm a mixture of personal development, academic enhancement, business productivity yet, I do have an inquisitive interest in the “fringe” association with a deeper understanding of how the human mind works while using Mind maps.

Keep this in mind: “A mind map is often an outward expression of the inward self” That's how it became for me a long time ago. I shared this personal finding with friends and colleagues, and whilst they often use other methods to make the connections between Mind, Consciousness and Thought; they all agreed that Mind mapping apparently has an almost esoteric quality.

The absolute power of the Mind map for many who dare to dig a little deeper into the implications for making a connection to and experiencing the benefits for their insights is a journey that's unique to every user.

The conversations I have with seasoned Mind mappers, who for the most part, are actually Knowledge mappers seems to all be in agreement regarding the “Insight” experiences while Mind mapping.

I personally use the T.A.P process to gain insight. I dump my thoughts into the virtual space of my computer and almost immediately find my self in that mindfulness zone where I may begin to feel that spark of creativity, innovation or maybe just that relaxing place where time seems to slow down and present us with those clarity moments, epiphanies and insights.

I often think; did Mr. Tony Buzan realize what he was formalizing when he introduced Mind mapping to the world? I believe he did, and for many mere Mind mapping is only the tip of the iceberg.

What's your take? Have you experienced a deeper connection with mindfulness via mind maps?

So you want to share you mind maps?

Another thought blog by Visual Mapper

So you want to share you mind maps?

Okay; do you really want to do that? Mind maps; those radiant formats some in education call spider graphs or charts. The education area actually does use mind mapping but alas they define it by those names, and in doing so have inadvertently or intentionally caused the mind mapping agenda to be diluted to spider graphs and charts.

I digress again of course; education isn't the focus here today.

Sharing mind maps is an anomaly to me. Since my work has me under certain conditions of NDA's, I am very restricted to what I would consider suitable for sharing via any mind mapping portals. I'm sure there's many who are in my position too, and it's a tad frustrating; isn't it?

Yes I've shared a few maps in the past at a specific map sharing portal; I believe they were relevant and generic enough to be of actual use to any who decided to download them. But alas I tend to use a map file format not included in the list of accepted file formats. That aside though, there's maps galore at that mind map sharing portal.

The rub for me? A high percentage of the maps shared by users of mapping software indicates their level of use of their particular software of choice and the content of the maps are IMO questionable as being relevant to a wider audience outwith the authors subjectivity contained within the maps.

You see; most large mind maps shared in general are like a plate of spaghetti to me. I look at them and think WT* these are all over the place and lack order and context. Yes I know; you're thinking, some of them are excellent and worth sharing, and I am agreeable with that thought.

The subjectivity thing comes into play with shared mind maps. Have you ever shared a mind map with a friend, colleague or client and they have that, deer in the headlights look, when they view it? It's as if you need to have a legend and a short training video attached in order for them to understand the map and how to navigate the contents.

Rudimentary maps are more easier to understand for sure, and in general first level maps (those with parents only) can be used/reused as templates: that's the objective side of map sharing.

When you go to a map sharing portal, there's maps galore and the file format war of dominance is evident. imindmap wins there and second place goes to Mindjet then I would attempt at the ConceptDraw file formats being number 3 (correct me if I'm wrong please). As an added thought; the Xmind format may actually eclipse all the others as being the most used file format to date.

At the date of this short blog; there's no function that allows the maps shared to be nothing other than glorified images or snapshots of maps, and this is due to the current inability to view stored maps that have attachments embedded into their graphical frameworks to be actually accessed and viewed via the portal. Yes that file format thing comes into play again eh?

I'm a Mind/Visual/Knowledge mapper, I really do understand the need to share what you have authored, and it's always an ego trip when sharing maps and having nice things said about them. Yet sharing maps remains an anomaly with the absence of a cloud database approach that allows the author to control the content of a map shared.

OH my: here's the final rub though.
After many hours of creating a business graphical framework, embedding tons of docs and attachments, creating a cloud link for non users to view my work; I am often asked to resend the whole package or upload the package in folders and files formats. Damn my audience doesn't want to or isn't even the slightest interested in looking at the my business knowledge processes in my beloved mapped format.

Is this familiar to you? Have you ever come across a friend, colleague, employee or client who simply puts their hand up and says “stop right there”; we don't use or support this kind of graphical approach.

Yeah it's happened to me on more than one occasion. So this is what I do before sharing data, information or knowledge with these groups: I use my own little approach called The T.A.P process and ultimately decide if my mapped format is what should be shared, or if I should consider a more conventional series of format presentations.

Now that word “conventional” is interesting, as it's been many years since Mr. Tony Buzan formalized Mind mapping, and to this day it's still absent from the mainstream and isn't deemed conventional.

But therein lies the power of the mapping format, IMO; the mind map is far superior to linear with regards to content, context and communication clarity (when authored with clarity in mind).

Share maps? Yes of course keep on doing it. At the least we create community and share maps with mappers. But let's not leave out the non mappers, let's have our mapped content available in non mapped formats too.

Is this a threat to mapping? Surely not all should mind map. What's your thoughts?

Time for you to blab now.