consistent links while copy/paste or move of nodes

consistent links while copy/paste or move of nodes

Postby nnako » Sun May 11, 2014 4:39 pm


I found something about links between nodes which looks like inconsistency. Maybe someone could help me find a solution/explanation.

In the picture below, you see three node settings "original", "copy/paste" and "move". Starting at the "original" node setting: Some nodes are linked with each other through visible arrow links (depicted as blue/plain arrows) and local node hyperlinks (depicted as blue/dashed arrows). The test will be, to copy/paste or move the marked nodes (shaded) from the source branch "S" to the target node "T", as marked by the green signs. The other node settings "copy/paste" and "move" show the state of the node links after the respective operation.

Now, after doing a "move" of the shaded nodes (see right part of the picture), both the arrow links and the hyperlinks are still consistent. The respective target nodes stay identical. This is even the case if there was no direct "move" e.g. by using the mouse to drag the resepective nodes to the new position, but a cut/paste operation within the same mindmap.

In contrast, when doing a "copy/paste" (i.e. keeping the original nodes and cloning them at a different map position), while the arrow link within the copy scope stays with the copied counterpart node (blue/plain 1'), the hyperlink leaves the copy scope and clings to the original node (red/dashed 1'), leaving the copied counterpart node unlinked.

Is the difference in behavior between arrow links and node hyperlinks intentional for copy/paste operations? As people tend to use both linking variants interchangable, the risk for misplaced links seems obvious. If there was a reason for this difference in behavior, wouldn't it be helpful to at least provide a parameter within the settings to determine this behavior for copy/paste operations deliberately?

Please tell me if my descriptions were too weird. I'd really like to clarify this subject because there might be the necessity to expand the current linking concepts in order to cope with segmenting of big mind maps and at the same time conserving any of their node links (maybe later even across new map borders).

Thanks for your comments.
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:46 pm

Return to Open Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest