Oinker user Zhao Wei wrote:
No CONNECTORS in true mindmap style? Either like freeplane or bubblus (web service) with line connectors linking nodes back and forth, arrowheaded and with labels both to/from ends and in center.
Actually, Oinker has a graph (network) structure as its core model, but its representation in the user interface, unlike other ideation tools, is not a nodes-and-edges style.
Why? Honestly, I don’t know. The concept of Oinker popped up in my mind, out of nowhere.
Possibly, Oinker’s document oriented style was inspired by Wiki whose data model has documents as nodes (pages) and hyperlinks as edges. The only difference is the representation of edges. A link in Oinker means visually embedding a node to another node.
Both styles have pros and cons. For example, nodes-and-edges is good for grasping the overview of a whole idea represented in a graph while the amount of information on a node is inevitably compressed (ideally, to a word or phrase). Document oriented style is suitable for building full-fledged documents which contains plenty of text and images, and it’s also important that the elements in a document are arranged in order from top to bottom.
In hindsight, one of the reasons Oinker adopted the style is that it aims to promote a bottom-up ideation approach where a user makes a large document from collected details. If you are suppose to draw a map like a mind map or concept map in nodes-and-edges format from the beginning, you would tend to build an idea from an abstract level.
Oinker’s bottom-up approach could be called a From Detail to Detail approach where you collect details by chatting and create a structure from them. Then you give body and substance to it with other newly collected details.
When you want to overview the emerging structure, it would be helpful to view it as a nodes-and-edges network. However, it should be noted that a document tends to contain many meaningless nodes which a network view should deal with somehow to avoid the verbosity of being precise.