Like you, I bet, I get really tired of using the same default map. It can get booorrrriiiiinnnnngggg. Here’s a really quick way to create a new map style. (FYI: a "style" refers to what a map looks like–the colors and shapes you use, the background, line colors, etc. A "template" can be all of that PLUS actual content such as topics that include the days of the week if it is a planning map, or of typical project elements if the map is designed to manage routine projects).

Right click on the center topic, main topics, subtopics (as far down as you want to customize) and use the Topic Format options to get the look you want.

1. Right-click in the open space to pick a new background! (Blue and orange spirals for a background??!! Very cool–just remember to make them pretty transparent so you can actually read what’s on the map…or not…:o)
2. Once you have it all formatted the way you want–and this is the critical step in Hobart’s Fractured Mapping–to delete all topics, leaving just the Center Topic.
3. Now go to Tools–> Template Organizer and use the drop down "Add New Map Template" and choose "From Current Map."
4. Once you have a map you like, just go to Format > Style > Make current map the default. It will then be used for all new default maps with no need for all delete/rename New Blank Map stuff. (Thanks to Robin Capper for this suggestion!)

   Just repeat this process every couple of months so avoid the dreaded Boring Map Syndrome. Worked for me. Let me know if it works for you.

If you do, I’d love to talk to you…FAST!! Financial Times is workng up an article on how technology either helps or totally debilitates online meetings. We’d like to pitch them stories about how our customers have better virtual meetings by using MindManager. So if you have a story to tell about this, please add a comment to this post or contact me directly at:

hobart.swan@mindjet.com or 415 229-4308.

Here is what the Financial Times is looking for:

Peter Whitehead, editor of FT Digital Business, wrote in the November 8 issue: “One great hope for saving the planet from ecological catastrophe is that technology will enable business people to travel less, reducing aircraft emissions and the number of towels and sheets washed by hotels. Meetings can be ‘virtual’, with teams collaborating via work rooms, instant messaging, video-conferencing, and the like. I recently saw Adobe demonstrate its latest online meetings software, for example, and it looked perfectly feasible. But a recent piece of research by occupational psychologists Pearn Kandola, carried out for Cisco Systems, suggests that computer-based communication is vastly inferior to face-to-face interaction between members of a team working together. The researchers found that virtual teams neglect the need to socialize to establish trust and understanding. With non-verbal cues accounting for 63 percent of meaning in face-to-face communication, the report says the main problems of virtual teams are an over-reliance on e-mail, a failure to respond to messages (‘virtual silence’), and inappropriate modes of communication.” The writer will examine this topic in depth and ask whether the solution is to get flying again or to get the technology to deliver a more all-encompassing package.

Yes, I’m a poet–it’s true…it’s really just me staying up way past my bedtime to take a look at Chuck Frey’s new ebook, Mind Mapping Software: How to Select the Perfect Program for Your Needs.

Chuck doesn’t appear to need to sleep, unlike many of the people I know. But that’s a good thing: It gives him time to create reference works like the aforementioned. In three separate documents Chuck and other mapping pros (including Walter Tait of visualmapaper.eu and Marc Orchant), a solid intro and FAQ on the whys and wherefors of mapping. (I suggest you get the bonus pack to get not just his guide to buying mind mapping software, but an in-depth review of most if not all of the mapping products out there, and a comparison chart that can make it easier for you to pick the mapping program for you)

He also provides a "Application Check-list" for people to use to ascertain which application would best fit. I was actually hoping that it would be accompanied by a chart that said something like "If your check list totalled A, then you should use #1 software; if it totalled B then you should use #2, etc." It doesn’t actually help you pick a particular brand of mapping app, but it is a good checklist nonetheless.

It will be interesting to see if Chuck does this again next year, and if he does, how many new contenders there will be then. That there are now something like 18 mapping applications on the market shows that it is gaining market traction. Now we just need Gartner to do its Mapping Magic Quadrant.