I think what you’ve developed is a great simple concept mapping tool that will really help early stage writing and idea development. Concept maps are more flexible than mind maps (no need for hierarchy etc.). (See e.g. VUE - Visual Understanding Environment - a free concept map tool).
In concept maps users can label the links. e.g. if you have CAT and MAMMAL you could link them, and label the link ISA (i.e. is a). There are a number of conventional links. At present logical links can be entered as notes and read visually. But for a future version (2?) perhaps they could be built in and then e.g. the programming underpinning them could function to control the output in a logical way.
This comes up a lot, but the trouble is that this was never part of Scapple’s design scope, so there is no real way to incorporate it without removing the simplicity that was the whole point of Scapple in the first place. As it stands, the lines between items are created by drag and drop (the whole point I built the app to begin with), and they have no attributes of their own. To add labels, you would have to be able to somehow select the lines themselves and edit them, and this adds a whole new layer to the app, hit-testing code, editing labels and such.
All the best,
I was wondering about this as well. I wanted a way to label the lines. But, then I thought what is the difference between labelling the lines and just having another connecting node ? Is there an actual visual difference ? Semantically, the difference may be more profound, but since I am dealing with the map as a visual representation, I don’t really care what it is encoded as, just what it looks like.
I think both (simple) maps look similar. Vue does add a bunch of ways to encode relationships, but for my purposes I did not have the time or the inclination to delve into this encoding. I just wanted a link to have an explicit statement for connection - ie: example, hence, excluding etc…
And of course, you can make Scapple look like the second shot too. With styles it would not be difficult to work this way.
Scrapple is a great design and far exceeds any other mind-mapping program I’ve used–and I’ve tried both pay and free. Your concept of keeping it simple (and highly intuitive) is the right approach.
There is only one thing I’d like to see added (and it is probably something you’ve already considered much less done.) When I’m brain busting ideas there isn’t time for nonessential details, which includes replacing the dashed lines with arrow lines. If I could click an icon that would put me in a line editing mode with a right click of the mouse I could graphically select which type line to replace the currently selected line.
Revising the type of line is something I’d like to spend less time doing.
BTW the graphics are just right and please don’t over think it and add some of the previous suggestions. It doesn’t add anything to Scrapple and makes it too busy.
Thanks, Storyman! I think adjusting a line type after the fact could be a reasonable suggestion, I’ve put it to the designer and we’ll see what he says. Similarly, I’ve also included ideas for non-modifier based line creation to begin with. Something like the right-click dragging that is possible in Windows Explorer, which lets you create copies or shortcuts without having to memorise the various modifier drag modes and to ease accessibility. These are all just ideas at this stage however.
Okay, that’s a “no” on the line changing bit. The main problem is technical—these lines don’t really “exist” in the sense that they are easy to detect for purposes of mouse-overs, right-clicks or what have you. In fact adding the double-click thing to insert a note “on” a line as trouble enough.
I would like to point out that there are ways of changing link types without using drag and drop + modifier keys. The Notes menu contains ample tools for doing so. For example if you wish to convert a dashed line from A to B, you would select them (starting with the one you want the arrow to originate from) and then either hit Ctrl-Alt-. or use
Notes/Connect with Arrow. While suffering only a minor increase in overhead over contextual operation, these commands are ultimately more flexible, as you can convert/create dozens of lines at once and so on.
Actually, it’s not necessarily a “no” - I am considering this. It’s just that I received the suggestion from Ioa late on a Friday night after a day of tearing out hideous legacy code from Scrivener, so wasn’t as receptive as usual. Glad you’re liking Scapple!