The MindManager versus iMindMap Election Debate

I am still a novice at using iMindMap, perhaps 40-60 hours on the job. I have been using MindManager most days since 1996.  So comparing the products is quite difficult for me.  I am pre-programmed to use MindManager.  Anyway I thought there is only way to see if iMindMap works for me and that is to give it the 90 minute debate test!  I covered the first priministerial debate with MindManager and the second with MindMeister.  Here is how iMindMap performed.

Once you get used to the Speed Mapping mode, it performs as well as  MindManager with some occasional blips but they could be operator error. Definitely more reliable than MindMeister (but it’s an online tool).  So recording the debate was relatively easy.  As with the other debates I set mains branches and people for 8 blank questions and the statements.  With the appropriate colour coding. I made a deliberate choice to use CAPITALS only.   I did not have the fluidity to make corrections on the fly as I do with MindManager.  Dragging branches is not the same.  No red shadow as per MindManager.  Then the real differences begin.

I deliberately did not want to replicate the linear layout of MindManager and choose the organic setting for Speed Mapping.  This leaves a considerable white space on the map. Good for reading on a A3 sheet but not for maximising the content in a browser screen.  So the result you see below took another hour or two of tweeking post debate to get the best I can achieve.  MindManager has the advantage of global settings that can be applied to topics with regard to vertical and horizontal spacing etc.  This allows you to make instant changes to the topic density on the map.

The result is definitely more organic than a MindManager map.

  • Is it easier to read?
  • Is it more memorable?
  • Is it more stimulating?
  • What do you think?

Third UK Election Debate – 29 April 2010 – BBC

Web Page Notes

1. The header,  footer and general layout are produced by a MindManager web export template Cabre created.

2. The iMindMap is an exported PNG image, converted to GIF, reduced to 90% of original size to speed up page loading and then added to the HTML.

3. The indented text outline is cut from the iMindMap web export of the map with some CSS editing to adjust the styles to work outside of an iframe.  This is a significant plus point of the iMindMap web export. The text on your map images can then be seen by Google et al.

So you may not be able to do this at home !)

About Andrew Wilcox

Andrew is an experienced user of MindManager who shares his knowledge and advice for free here. And provides commercial training and consulting on how to exploit MindManager and other mind mapping software applications in business, organisations and for individuals at Cabre For more information about Andrew please visit his Google + profile.

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “The MindManager versus iMindMap Election Debate”

  1. Robin Capper says:

    Interesting how much easier the map is to read when compared to the outline. Maybe it’s my MindManager tuned mind but prefer reading horizontal aligned text aligned with the curved branches in the iMindMap

  2. Andrew Wilcox says:

    Hi Robin, Thanks for comment. Should that read “than text aligned”?

  3. Nick Duffill says:

    I think this demonstrates that organic maps and the “one word per branch” rule are made for each other. More than a couple of words on a curved branch are hard to read at a glance. Part of the reason that “one word per branch” works is that we can recognise a single word without really reading it. More than a couple of words requires reading and parsing to interpret the meaning. When there is an added complication such as text at changing angles, we cannot use peripheral vision to pre-read either side of the word in focus, so the comprehension rate drops by perhaps a factor of 50 or 100 compared to a single word.

  4. Bruce says:

    I am looking for the comparison between iMindMap and Mindjet, thanks for your post 🙂

Leave a Reply