On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:25, Simon Schampijer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 02/14/2011 02:10 PM, Nagarjuna G wrote: >>> This is a proposal for discussion to develop concept mapping mode >>> within Labyrinth or as an independent activity using the code base of >>> Labyrinth. I elaborate below how Labyrinth can be developed/modified >>> further to support concept mapping. >>> >>> 1. Concept mapping requires, unlike mind maps, names/labels to be >>> given to each link. >>> 2. A mode switch can be provided to change between mind maps and concept >>> maps. >>> 3. Keeping the map while in concept map mode should create a file >>> which stores mode preference + the map. >>> 4. Concept mapping requires multiple parents (this is possible in >>> labyrith, but by delinking the nodes after making them.) We can >>> possibly achieve this by adding a node with a KeyPress + MouseClick on >>> the canvas. >>> 5. Concept mapping requires cross links between nodes (this is >>> already possible in Labyrinth) >>> 6. An option to keep in CmapTools format (which is an XML ecnoding) >>> for data exchange between other concept mapping apps. >>> >>> I would like to know what your reactions are to this proposal. Please >>> comment on the feasibility. >>> >>> gnowledge lab (http://lab.gnowledge.org) can undertake this >>> development work with help from the current developers of Labyrith. >>> Of course, if the current team is happy to implement these features, >>> that will be wonderful. Our lab does teacher training on Sugar in >>> India, and we desperately need a free concept mapping application. >>> Once I hear your views, we can start the work as soon as possible. >>> >>> thanks in advance >>> -- >>> Nagarjuna >> >> Hi Nagarjuna, >> >> thanks for sharing your interest! Actually we were talking about this need >> here at OLPC (today!!!) as well. The Concept Maps are often used in >> education. If you would find ways to enhance Labyrinth, that would be great. >> For example, changing the color of a bubble might work as a first step to >> indicate the relationship: >> >> (Sugar) >> | >> (UI) >> | >> (GNOME) >> >> Having the 'UI' bubble in another color than the 'Sugar' and 'GNOME' bubble >> would indicate that it is an relationship. I am sure there are other and >> better ways - just a quick idea. > > There was a quick fix added to make floating text labels that I was not > really happy with from a design perspective, but folks were hollering for it > and I had no time to work on it, so I let it pass. What should have happened > is for the label tool button to actually be a thought style button. It would > at minimum allow 1) the default box style as is; 2) a line style (where the > spline link forms a horizontal line under the text AKA a labeled link as is > being requested now for concept maps); 3) none, so text can just float on its > own like a label. That would have covered much of the needs I've seen > mentioned. >
I am thinking of the following approach. When in concept mapping mode, each time we create a sibling, we can create an intermediary node without outline with splines on either side Whenever we need to create a crow-feet, we can select the label created as above followed by inserting a normal sibling without an intermediary node. Here we interpret a regular concept node without an outline and background color as a link. What do you think? -- GN _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
