> Would you like to bring a touch of adventurous spirit to your contents?
I personally would not, but I’m really glad people more adventurous than I are still exploring the periphery of UI design!
[0] https://www.macworld.com/article/223467/remembering-eworld-a...
Try this a bit, it would be nice to be able to go directly to the grand-child, instead having to bring up the parent before going the child. Other wise can be a much better file naviation system then what we have. Especially on touch screen I would image.
Also I hate that I can't select text on this. Probably because "dragging".
Using a pointer, I'd prefer to just be able to click on the oval to zoom into, maybe double-click to zoom back out a level, use the back button to go to the place I came from.
[1] https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org - the website exists but is non-functional now
[2] https://www.kialo.com - feels like a dumbed-down version of arguman
It's critically missing suggestions/approvals[2], and perhaps a simpler interface[3], but I think that, for arguments about problems/solutions, the idea of grounding arguments within a cause/effect diagram is really powerful both for getting on the same page and for making concrete progress towards improving a situation (rather than arguing for argument's sake).
I'd be happy to get your thoughts on it if you have any (I'll be making a HN post about it sometime soon^TM).
I've been thinking the same thing, and also started working on it in the past. Whenever I voiced this (like here) others came to me saying they also thought of it as at LEAST a part of "the solution". You seem to actually have something going here!
I'll take a look at your three links, a first look at [1] gives me goosebumps, you have no idea how happy I am that I'm not the only one that still has this top-of-mind, especially nowadays, no matter what side you lean towards.
I can't really find the words to convey my elation here, so you'll have to do with a simple "wow, thank you!".
None of these mind map, zoom first interfaces actually help with creating a global understanding.
People take an occasionally helpful "view" for navigating items and then mistakenly believe it should be turned into an active interface for creation and editing.
Graph/Mindmap views should only ever be a view and maybe a linking layer for nested text lists, actively operating in these interfaces is worse for global understanding and systems thinking.
I suspect this is because mind maps don't actually map to how our brain stores information.
Visual programming and even tools like KNIME work for stepwise workflow creation but they are not a good UI for new thinking, it's too much UI for novel idea generation and brainstorming, these interfaces are also useful for quickly understanding a DB structure.
That's why they never take off and remain a niche tool for the small number of people who have brain structures that find them useful or are willing to bend themselves to an arbitrary interface.
[0] https://prezi.com/p/p6evz0gdy5dr/ux-design-tips-for-product-...
In a work setting I am constantly juggling between excel,PowerPoint,word and bunch of online wiki style tools
When I have to craft something that requires information from these tools, like many, I end up creating a PowerPoint presentation.
Gets the job done but never feels ideal given the one way directional nature of it, yes you can hyperlink but gets messy for audience.
This style of navigation could help especially where you are layering the information across multiple themes (each theme say is a node). As audience you might go deep into one node quickly then zoom back out to understand how that node interacts with another.
Decidedly not "OK".
On i3, Windows things seem fine - I tried Edge, Chrome, and Firefox.
On Mac, I somehow managed to get it working based on Lambda Test web interface feedback, but I wouldn't know the real use performance.
It doesn't say if the car is from the 60s or from a few years ago.
You don't want to know if it's i3/i5/i7/i9, that's essentially useless.
What you want to know is which generation it is.
For example:
Looking at a 1st gen i7:
- The i7-920 released in 2008 which only has 4 cpu cores and runs at 2.66ghz
Compared to a 14th gen i7:
- The i7-14700k from 2023 which has 20 cpu cores, 12 of which can run at 4.3ghz and 8 of which can run at 5.6ghz.
--------
Basically the way the intel naming scheme has been is:
"<i-number>-<gen-number><inter-gen-number><optional-letter>"
- i-number (i.e. i3, i5, i7, i9) means rough idea of which features are included. For example: i3 is basic functionality, i7 will mean hyperthreading (although competition from AMD meant that this feature started become standard on all cpus)
- gen-number: (i.e. 1st gen through to 14th gen) means basically what version the chip is. Kind of like an iPhone 1 vs an iPhone 14, big difference at the start then only incremental differences about 2/3rds of the way through.
- inter-gen-number: (e.g. 400, 770, 900, etc...) means basically how good the chip in this generation is compared to other chips in this generation. Kind of like iPhone vs iPhone Pro, vs iPhone Pro Max.
- optional letter: (e.g. nothing, K, F, etc...) means basically any other info you should know about this chip. For example: "K" means the chip can be overclockable (runs hotter and requires more electricity for better performance), or "F" means the integrated graphics on this chip doesn't work so it's getting sold for cheaper and you'll need an external graphics card to see things, etc...
So the i7-14700k would be:
- i-number = i7
- gen-number = 14
- inter-gen-number = 700
- optional letter = k
A 14th-gen i7, which will be more powerful than an i5-14600, and a "K" on the end meaning it can be overclocked so we'll charge a little more on this chip.
It's 5-6yo just before Ryzen got competitive with Intel. A current option should be noticeably faster.
I don't see a scenario where this would be useful. It reminds me of exploded-view drawing but I don't see this being useful for textual content. Do you have an explicit use case? The example page, to me, looks very cluttered, overwhelming and IMO aesthetically unpleasing when reading on a mobile device.
Otherwise, this is pretty cool and would be great for one-way traversing (maybe a quiz/test would do well here)
The mobile UI is really slick though!
I feel like this UI would be good for some sort of narrative game, where each oval is a room and things keep changing in each room.
The only nit that I really have is that my intuition was that I'd be able to select new "sections" (or "bubbles" or whatever they're called) by clicking or double clicking. Having to grab and drag isn't bad but it violated the "principle of least surprise" for me a little bit. But not exactly a big deal.
Verdict: thumb down.
But - perhaps the example is only partial and perhaps this will develop into something more meaningful.
My phone is not great but drawing some circles and some text should not take 100ms. On any device.