2. During information exchanges we are concerned about velocity and viscosity of the transfer. Maps can help both, but it is important to consider whether the map is intended as a stand-alone document or one that will be have some supporting element such as formal presentation or some dialog. For the stand-alones, consider using more text, avoid jargon or assigning different meanings to the same word. If possible, test it out on a diverse group of people before launching it. Where there is the opportunity for some communication when presenting a map, include or update it based on what is said. Send a copy of the final map to everyone you spoke with along the way.

3. The errors we make generally fall into two categories, commission and omission. Most times knowledgeable individuals using standard tools can spot errors that are committed, but mind mapped presentations significantly help ferret out the what is missing.

I tend to think the former: A map is such an idiosyncratic way to (re)present information. Odds are that, unless the information involved is common knowledge (like our March Madness maps last year), a map of any complexity won’t necessarily communicate information any faster to those who can’t get past the form to see the contents…But if we can stipulate that the people viewing the map all share a common knowledge base, then the kinds of rules you mention will aid deconstruction of the map.

-Use colors, images, fonts with a legend
-Treat the first map as a rough draft and improve it

Additionally I would add (for new users) that one should assume readers are going to review the map clockwise.

Bettina (Jetter, a co-founder) never ceases to impress me with the Occam’s Razor-like (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) quality of her thinking/mapping.

I don’t have a handy rule about this, other than to suggest that MindManager users take the time, after having created a map, to go back and clean it up. This is actually one of the benefits of using a Tablet PC: you create the map with the pen then, as you go through and “recognize” the ink into text, you get a chance to really look at what you have entered and, hopefully, get rid of redundant and/or overly long topics.

Yes, Buzan had/has some pretty definite ideas about how to create maps (I think he suggested no more than two words per topic)–rules that might not work too well in the complex world of business. But his general sense of it makes sense to me: brevity is best, and use visual icons instead of words as appropriate and possible. This is, after all, the premise of maps–to use our visual cortex to make information more consummable and memorable.

But what about:
- use (background-)colors to group and emphasize, but not too many colors (4 is enough). Use strong colors for strong topics, use identical colors for the same type of topics.
- use font size to group and emphasize topics (similar to the above)
- stick to your style
- use a legend, if needed (as Bruno pointed out)
- …

Besides cartograpy, what’s wrong about the principles described in Buzan’s Mindmap book? For example, put words on different topics: e.g instead of “active participation”, write “participation” and then a subtopic “active”. Maybe you want to consider “passive”, too?

Good lick