| 20140719: Jack Park: Comparisons in relation to User Experience Position1 #347988
|
Jerry is referring to his instance ofhttp://www.thebrain.com/herehttps://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/3D80058C-14D8-5361-0B61-A061F89BAF87It is clear to me that he is referring to the methodology enabled byTheBrain, as presented here:http://www.thebrain.com/support/tutorials/which allows him to achieve clarity in what I call "mapping processes".The "big three" at TheBrain appear to be: types, tags, and relations.In a sense, that's the same "big three" in play in my graph. But itseems to me that what is different, and I think Jerry is making acrucial point, is the difference in the way the platform works, theway it facilitates let's call it "user experience" where user standsfor both the mapper, and people who view the map.I am not convinced that the underlying data structure is what is inplay here; rather, I see it as a user experience issue, which I seethis way:My limited use of TheBrain, going way back to where it was a simpledesktop application, informs me that there are just a few ways toactually create types and relate them. That's simple, and stillpowerful.My much longer experience with DebateGraph, informed more by my loneuse of Compendium and building topic maps is that the user experienceis far less constrained, lending more options to the mapper, possiblycreating more confusion to those who must navigate the map later on.I have spoken with people who actually prefer TheBrain overDebateGraph, but I am one who likes the freedom to explore richer waysto specify relations and so forth. So, Jerry's interest in a deepercomparison of the two platforms seems appropriate.Other thoughts? |